Dissertation Hot Tearing Evaluation.

STUDY OF HOT TEARING EVALUATION METHODS AND
QUANTIFICATION OF CONTRACTION FORCES IN DIE CASTING ALLOYS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University
By
Shri Nath Dubey, M.S.
Graduate Program in Industrial and Systems Engineering
The Ohio State University
2015
Dissertation Committee:
Professor Jerald R. Brevick, Adviser
Professor Allen Yi
Professor Jose Castro

Copyright by
Shri Nath Dubey
2015
ABSTRACT
Hot tearing is the undesired formation of irregular cracks in metal castings that develop
during solidification and cooling; typically while the casting is still inside the mold or die
cavity. The cause of hot tearing is generally attributed to the development of thermally
induced tensile stresses and strains in a casting as the molten metal contracts during
solidification and solid state shrinkage. Hot tearing often occurs at the inside corners or
fillets of casting geometries, where casting shrinkage is constrained by the relatively rigid
mold cavity.
In the past 15-20 years, several methods have been employed to evaluate the hot tearing
propensity of casting alloys. Specifically, constrained rod casting, crack-ring, horizontal
Bar, T-Shape, and Ring mold designs have been used. Constrained rod casting (CRC) has
evolved as the most common method, and has been used in several studies to evaluate hot
tearing for die casting alloys. The results from CRC methods are not universally
applicable, because there is no standardized CRC mold design and the test results are also
semi-quantitative at best.
ii
This research is focused on the design and manufacture of a new CRC mold (Enhanced
Constrained Rod Casting-ECRC) for quantitative measurement in determining hot tearing
of A206.2, A380, Test-A, and AT72 alloys. A new feeding concept for the ECRC was
developed for streamlined flow and for reducing fill time using numerical simulations
(Magmasoft). ECRC used four constrained rods at various lengths and with bulbous ends
for hot tearing evaluation. A measurement rod was used without bulbous end to measure
thermal contraction forces as function of time during solidification with a load cell installed
over a quartz rod of a low thermal expansion. Thermal contraction forces were measured
as function of time and as hot tearing developed in the casting of A206.2, A380, Test-A,
and AT72 alloys, which became evident (via a significant drop in load-time curves). Sprue
design was optimized to improve the flow so no area of the casting freezes early.
A transient thermal-mechanical FEA model was developed of enhanced constrained rod
casting (ECRC) and simulations were performed for thermal strains at various pouring
temperatures of A206.2, Test-A, A380, and AT72 alloys. It was observed that thermal
strains were a function of time (and temperature) for various pouring temperatures.
Hot tearing predictive models were used to study shrinkage porosity and strain rate of die
casting alloy to validate the experimental studies. The Niyama criterion model emerged
as a good predictor of hot tearing characteristics since hot tearing is influenced by
thermal gradients and cooling rates in die casting alloys.
iii
Dedicated to my parents, my wife, and my children.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank my advisor Professor Jerald R. Brevick for his
guidance, encouragement, and patience during my research and study. Conducting
research at the Department of Industrial and System Engineering was a very rewarding and
excellent learning experience to me.
My sincere thanks go to my thesis committee members Professor Allen Yi and Professor
Jose M. Castro for encouragement, critical comments and guidance during research.
I want to thank Dr. Allen Luo for opportunity to work on GM project. I would like to
thank Mr. Andrew Klarner, Mr. Emre Cinkilic, and Mr. Weihua, Sun for their support
during experimental studies of AT72 alloy. My sincere thanks to Mr. Bill Tullos, for his
enormous support on experimental studies and casting simulation. I would like to thank
Mr. Josh Hassenzahl for support in using casting lab and tools for experimental studies. I
would like to thank Mr. Mike Zazon and Mr. Cedric Sze for IT support.
Finally, my deepest gratitude to my family. I am grateful to my parents who believed in
me. I would like to thank my wife – Sadhna and my children - Priya, Ashish, and Nikhil
for their understanding and cooperation during Ph.D. research.
v
VITA
EDUCATION
Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering August, 1994

West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia
Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering December, 1991
South Dakota School of Mines & Technology
Rapid City, South Dakota
Bachelor Degree in Mechanical Engineering July, 1989
Østfold University College, Sarpsborg, Norway
PUBLICATION
Dubey, S., N., Brevick. J., R., “Overview of Recent Research Regarding Hot Tearing of
Die Casting Alloys”, Die Casting Congress & Exposition, October 8-10, 2012, at the
Indiana Convention Center – Halls A&B in Indianapolis, IN.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Industrial and Systems Engineering
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. v
VITA .................................................................................................................................. vi
PUBLICATION ................................................................................................................. vi
FIELDS OF STUDY.......................................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1 HOT TEARING EVALUATION METHODS ......................................................... 7
1.2 SCOPE OF RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 9
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................... 11
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLGY ............................................................................... 13
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION ...................................................... 16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 17
2.1 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF HOT TEARING ........ 17
2.1.1 CONSTRAINED ROD CASTING (CRC) FOR EVALUATION OF Mg-Al

ALLOYS ................................................................................................................... 18
2.1.2 CRACK-RING FOR EVALUATION OF MG-9AL-XZn ALLOY ................ 25

vii
2.1.3 HORIZONTAL BAR FOR EVALUATION OF Mg ALLOY ........................ 27
2.1.4 T-SHAPE FOR EVALUATION OF A206 ALLOY ....................................... 29
2.1.5 RING MOLD FOR EVALUATION OF AA1050 VIA ACOUSTIC

EMISSION ................................................................................................................ 30
2.1.6 RING MOLD FOR EVALUATION OF Al-Cu AND Mg ALLOYS .............. 33
2.2 NUMERICAL MODELING APPROACH AND SIMULATION ......................... 34
2.3 HOT TEARING PREDICTIVE MODELS ............................................................ 39
2.4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 45
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................... 50
3.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOT TEARING .......................................................... 50
3.2 STAGES OF CRYSTAL GROWTH SOLDIFICATION PROCESS .................... 53
3.3 FORMATION OF DENDRITE MICROSTRUCTURES ...................................... 57
3.4 STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE ........ 58
3.5 STRAIN THEORIES .............................................................................................. 61
3.6 HOT TEARING CRITERIA ................................................................................... 65
3.7 HEAT TRANSFER IN CASTING SOLIDIFICATION ........................................ 71
3.7.1 FLOW OF HEAT INTERFACES WITH CHILL ............................................ 71
3.7.2 FLOW OF HEAT INTO CASTING........................................................... 72
3.7.3 HEAT RELEASED DURING SOLIDIFICATION ................................... 72
CHAPTER 4 - EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF DIE CASTING ALLOYS ................. 73
4.1 DESIGNING OF A BOOK MOLD ASSEMBLY .................................................. 74
viii
4.1.1 DESIGNING OF A SPRUE AND RUNNER FOR METAL FLOW .............. 75
4.1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED CONTRAINED ROD CASTING ......... 79
4.2 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF A206.2, TEST-A, A380, AND AT72 ALLOYS
....................................................................................................................................... 86
4.3 INSTRUMENTATION OF EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUSES ........................ 92
4.4 EXPERIMENTAL MATRIX AND CHARATERTICS OF A206.2, TEST-A,
A380, AT72 ALLOYS .................................................................................................. 95
4.5 MELTING AND CASTING PROCESSES OF A206.2, TEST-A, A380, AND
AT72 ALLOYS ............................................................................................................. 98
4.5.1 FORCE MEASUREMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS OF A206.2 ALLOY

100
4.5.2 FORCE MEASUREMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS OF TEST-A .......... 111
4.5.3 FORCE MEASUREMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS OF A380 ALLOY. 121
4.5.4 FORCE MEASUREMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS OF AT72 ALLOY .. 129
4.6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 136
CHAPTER 5 – NUMERICAL AND HOT TEARING PREDICTIVE MODELING ... 138
5.1 NUMERICAL AND PREDICTIVE MOEDLING APPROACH ........................ 138
5.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING AND SIMULATION ..................................... 139
5.2.1 FLOW MODELING AND SIMULATION ................................................... 141
5.2.2 COOLING AND SOLIDIFCATION OF ECRC MOLD ............................... 144
5.3 SEQUENTIAL COUPLED TRANSIENT THERMAL STRUCTURAL
METHODS.................................................................................................................. 150
ix
5.4 THERMO-MECHANICAL MODELING AND SIMULATION ........................ 151
5.5 CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS AT SOLID STATE.......................................... 153
5.6 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF CASTING
ALLOYS ..................................................................................................................... 155
5.7 HOT TEARING PREDICTIVE MODELING ..................................................... 169
5.8 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 173
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

RESEARCH.................................................................................................................... 175
6.1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................... 175
6.2 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 179
6.3 FUTURE RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 182
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 184
APPENDIX-A: EXPERIMENTAL DATA FOR A206.2 ALLOY ............................... 193
APPENDIX-B: EXPERIMENTAL DATA FOR A380 ALLOY ................................... 201
APPENDIX-C: EXPERIMENTAL DATA FOR TEST-A ALLOY .............................. 208
APPENDIX-D: EXPERIMENTAL DATA FOR AT72 ALLOY .................................. 215
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Castability Index for Mg Die-casting Alloys [13] .......................................... 19
Table 2. Influence of Zn on Mg-Zn Alloy at Different Mold Temperatures [16] ........ 23
Table 3. B206 Alloys with Various Compositions [17] ............................................... 24
Table 4. Hot tearing Susceptibilities to Die Casting Alloys ......................................... 46
Table 5. Hot tearing Susceptibilities [35] ..................................................................... 47
Table 6. Hot tearing Ratings [13] ................................................................................. 49
Table 7. Characteristic of Hot tearing [37,39,42] ......................................................... 51
Table 8. Types of Tools Applied in Development of Book Mold Assembly [57]. ...... 80
Table 9. List of Apparatuses for Experimental Studies ................................................ 88
Table 10. Chemical Compositions of A206.2 Alloy ................................................... 95
Table 11. Chemical Compositions of Test-A Alloy ................................................... 96
Table 12. Chemical Compositions of A380 Alloy ...................................................... 97
Table 13. Chemical Compositions of AT72 (Mg-7Al-2Sn) ....................................... 97
Table 14. Summary of Hot Tearing Results ............................................................. 103
Table 15. Summary of Hot Tearing Results ............................................................. 106
Table 16. Summary of Hot Tearing Results at 800°C .............................................. 109
Table 19. Shrinkage [42] ........................................................................................... 148
xi
Table 20. Physical Properties of A206, A380, Test-A Alloy and AT72 [65, 66] ..... 157
Table 21. Physical Properties of A380 [66] .............................................................. 157
Table 22. Physical Properties of P20 Tool Steel [66] ............................................... 158
Table 23. Pouring Temperatures for Alloys.............................................................. 158
Table 24. Mold Temperatures for Alloys.................................................................. 159
Table 25. Simulation Time Steps .............................................................................. 159
Table 26. Total Thermal and Mechanical Strain of A206 Alloy .............................. 160
Table 27. Total Thermal and Mechanical Strain of Test-A Alloy ............................ 162
Table 28. Total thermal and mechanical strains of A380 ......................................... 164
Table 29. Total Thermal and Mechanical Strain of AT72 ........................................ 166
Table 30. The summary of total maximum thermal strain ........................................ 168
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Hot tearing at junction points of constrained rod casting ................................... 2
Figure 2. a) Hot tearing in aluminum ingot b) Hot tearing in extrusion billet [3] ............. 3
Figure 3. Shoulder cracks in the MC-HPDC recycled AM series magnesium scrap prior
to optimization [4]............................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4. Hot cracks in Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) of gas tungsten arc welding ............. 5
Figure 5. Dendritic solidification along with possible hot tearing phenomena in casting
[6] ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 6. Experimental set up of constrained rod casting [8] ............................................ 7
Figure 7. Air entrapment and unsteady flow in CRC ...................................................... 10
Figure 8. A schematic illustration of methodologies for hot tearing evaluation methods 15
Figure 9. Hot tearing in the longest rod [13] ................................................................... 20
Figure 10. Steel mold for constrained rod casting to determine hot tearing [14] ............ 21
Figure 11. Crack-ring mold to determine hot tearing [18]............................................... 26
Figure 12. A model of horizontal bar with downsprue [20] ............................................ 28
Figure 13. Hot tearing effects at mold temperatures 210 and 250 °C [20] ...................... 28
Figure 14. Hot tearing at reflections (0 0 1) [21] ............................................................. 29
Figure 15. Schematic of instrumented constrained T-shaped casting [22] ...................... 30
Figure 16. Cooling curves T and dT/dt-t, hot tearing at 800 °C [22] .............................. 30
Figure 17. Experimental set up of ring mold casting [23] ............................................... 32

xiii
Figure 18. Hot tearing detection via AE method [23] ..................................................... 32
Figure 19. Crack length as function of Cu content in Al-Cu alloys [24] ......................... 33
Figure 20. Crack length as function of Mg content in Al-Mg alloys [24] ..................... 34
Figure 21. A 3D model of ingot with bottom block and boundary conditions [25] ........ 36
Figure 22. Hot tearing modeling approach [26]............................................................... 36
Figure 23. Comparison between hot tear in casting and simulation results [26] ............. 38
Figure 24. A 2D model with mesh and boundary conditions [27]................................... 38
Figure 25. Determination of hot cracking susceptibility [30] .......................................... 40
Figure 26. 𝜆 (Lambda) curve [36] ................................................................................... 48
Figure 27. Hot tearing in Al-10Cu alloy (Spittle and Cushway 1983) [37,39]. .............. 52
Figure 28. Hot tearing at various carbon contents in Fe-C diagram [41]. ....................... 53
Figure 29. Start of crystallization, crystal growth, and film stages in solidification [44] 54
Figure 30. Stages of hot tearing in binary Alloys [43] ..................................................... 55
Figure 31. Modeling of dendrites at coherency states [38] ............................................... 56
Figure 32. Formation of grains and arm spacing [37] ..................................................... 58
Figure 33. Phase changes in stresses-strain curves at different temperatures [42] .......... 59
Figure 34. Strain development from film stage to non-equilibrium solidification [41] .. 62
Figure 35. Strain development leading to tear formations [41] ....................................... 63
Figure 36. Ratio of vulnerability ( 𝑡𝑣) to stress relaxation ( 𝑡𝑟) for hot tearing [46,47] .. 67
Figure 37. A schematic illustration of enhanced constrained rod casting ....................... 75
Figure 38. Fluid flow in a tapered sprue (circular) ......................................................... 76
xiv
Figure 39. a) Bend radius for inner b) Bend radius for outer radius between sprue and
runner [54] ........................................................................................................................ 77
Figure 40. Eddies and aspiration [56] .............................................................................. 78
Figure 41. Formation of streamlined fluid flow [56] ....................................................... 78
Figure 42. A 2D engineering drawing of left side mold assembly .................................. 81
Figure 43. A 2D engineering drawing of right side mold assembly ................................ 82
Figure 44. The details of installation for left mold cavity ................................................ 84
Figure 45. A 3D view of left mold cavity ......................................................................... 84
Figure 46. The details of installation for right mold cavity .............................................. 85
Figure 47. A 3D view of right mold cavity....................................................................... 85
Figure 48. A schematic illustration of experimental set up for ECRC mold ................... 87
Figure 49. Book mold assembly of enhanced constrained rod casting ............................ 89
Figure 50. Closed book mold assembly of enhanced constrained rod casting with K-type
thermocouple..................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 51. Data acquisition system (Tracer DAQ) with donut load cell [59,61]............. 90
Figure 52. Quartz rod for force measurement with shaft collar [60] ............................... 90
Figure 53. USB-TC thermocouple data logger with K-type thermocouple [62,63] ........ 91
Figure 54. Load cell compression, flat, and ceramic washers [59,64] ............................. 91
Figure 55. Instrumentation and installation of testing equipment for ECRC mold ......... 93
Figure 56. Installation of load cell along with quartz rod and washers ........................... 94
Figure 57. Support bracket for quartz rod and load cell assembly ................................... 94
xv
Figure 58. Casting of ECRC as solidified inside mold after pouring of Test-A-alloy at
700°C .............................................................................................................................. 100
Figure 59. Contraction force and cooling curve of A206.2 at 700°C ............................ 102
. Figure 60. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing for A206.2 C at 700°C .... 103
Figure 62. A Photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing for A206.2 C at 760°C....... 106
Figure 64. A photograph of the ECRC showed hot tearing cracks at 800°C ................ 109
Figure 65. Contraction force and cooling curve of Test-A at 700°C ............................. 113
Figure 66. A photograph of cast part did not exhibit hot tearing for Test-A at 700°C .. 114
Figure 67. Casting of ECRC as solidified inside mold at 700°C of Test-A-alloy ......... 114
Figure 68. Contraction force and cooling curve of Test-A alloy at 750°C .................... 116
Figure 69. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing for Test-A at 750°C .......... 117
Figure 70. Solidified casting inside mold showed hot tearing cracks at 750°C ............ 117
Figure 71. Contraction forces and cooling curve for Test-A at 800°C .......................... 119
Figure 72. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing for test-A at 800°C ........... 120
Figure 73. Contraction forces and temperatures as a function of time for A380 alloy at
700°C. ............................................................................................................................. 123
Figure 74. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing cracks at 700°C ................. 124
Figure 75. Contraction forces and cooling curve for A380 alloy at 750°C ................... 125
Figure 76. A photograph of cast part did not exhibit hot tearing at 750°C ................... 126
Figure 77. Contraction forces and cooling curve for A380 alloy at 800°C ................... 127
xvi
Figure 79. Contraction forces and cooling curve for AT72 alloy at 675 °C ................. 130
Figure 81. Contraction forces and cooling curve for AT72 alloy at 710 °C .................. 132
Figure 82. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing at 710°C ............................ 133
Figure 83. Contraction forces and cooling curve for AT72 alloy at 750°C ................... 134
Figure 84. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing at 750°C ............................ 135
Figure 85. Model of current constrained rod casting (CRC) ......................................... 140
Figure 86. Model of enhanced constrained rod casting (ECRC) ................................... 140
Figure 87. Filling velocity of CRC at 700°C for A206.2 ............................................... 142
Figure 88. Filling velocity of ECRC at 700°C for A206.2 ............................................ 142
Figure 89. Hotspot of A206 alloy at 700°C pouring temperature .................................. 143
Figure 90. Hotspot of A206 alloy at 800°C pouring temperature .................................. 144
Figure 91. Cooling and solidification of A206.2 alloy at 700C .................................... 145
Figure 92. Solidification shrinkage of A206.2 alloy at 700 °C ...................................... 146
Figure 93. Cooling and solidification of A206.2 alloy at 760°C ................................... 146
Figure 94. Solidification shrinkage of A206.2 at 760 °C............................................... 147
Figure 95. Solidification shrinkage Al-Si alloy at 700 °C ............................................. 148
Figure 98. Transient thermal analysis using ANSYS sequential coupling method [70] 150
xvii
Figure 99. Model of ECRC for thermal and structural analysis [70]............................. 151
Figure 100. Plane55 2D thermal solid element [70] ...................................................... 152
Figure 101. Model with plane55 thermal solid element [70]......................................... 152
Figure 102. ECRC model with boundary conditions [70] ............................................. 156
Figure 103. Thermal strain for A206 alloy at 700°C ..................................................... 160
Figure 104. Thermal strain for A206.2 alloy at 760°C .................................................. 161
Figure 106. Thermal strain for Test-A Alloy at 700°C.................................................. 162
Figure 107. Thermal strain for Test-A alloy at 750°C .................................................. 163
Figure 108. Thermal strain for Test-A alloy at 800°C ................................................... 163
Figure 110. Thermal Strain for A380 alloy at 750°C .................................................... 165
Figure 112. Thermal strain for AT72 alloy at 675°C .................................................... 166
Figure 115. Shrinkage porosity of A206.2 alloy at 700°C............................................. 170
Figure 116. Shrinkage porosity of A206.2 alloy at 760°C............................................. 170
Figure 117. RDG criterion for die casting alloys ........................................................... 172
Figure 118. Feurer’s lamda model for Al-Si alloy [69] .................................................. 177
Figure 119. Hot cracking susceptibility for Mg-Al alloy [14] ....................................... 178
Figure 120. Fluidity of AZ91 alloy as a function of Sn content [72] ............................ 179
xviii
Figure 121. Proposal for future research work .............................................................. 183
xix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Hot tearing (or hot cracking) is the formation of irregular cracks in a casting that develop
during solidification and cooling; typically while the casting is still inside the mold or die
cavity. The cause of hot tearing is generally attributed to the development of thermally
induced tensile stresses and strains in a casting as the molten metal contracts during
solidification and solid state shrinkage. As a result, hot tearing often occurs at inside
corners or fillets of casting geometries, where casting shrinkage is constrained by the mold
cavity. In die casting, the mold cavity is a comparatively rigid structure (usually steel), in
compared to the relatively low strength aluminum, magnesium or zinc casting alloys at
high temperature. One of the key “castability” attributes considered in the development of
new metal casting alloys is a low propensity for hot tearing. In addition to casting design
features, factors that influence hot tearing include both casting alloy (chemical composition
and solidification characteristics), and casting process parameters. Therefore, hot tearing
tends to be of greater concern in die casting processes, compared to sand casting processes
where the mold cavity is typically lower in strength, and more compliant to casting
shrinkage. Hot tearing cracks can be seen via in Constrained Rod Casting (CRC) shown
in Figure 1 [1, 2].
1
Figure 1. Hot tearing at junction points of constrained rod casting
Also, hot tearing defects have been investigated in the continuous casting of steel and
aluminum ingots. The rapid cooling processes cause higher thermal gradients that led to
thermal contraction in the ingots, which result in hot tears as shown Figure 2 [3].
2
Figure 2. a) Hot tearing in aluminum ingot b) Hot tearing in extrusion billet [3]
Moreover, hot tearing exists in the other metal forming processes such as high pressure die
casting and welding. In Melt Conditioned High Pressure Die Casting (MC-HPDC), the hot
cracking phenomenon was investigated in the recycled AM series magnesium scrap by
Tzamtzis et al., as shown in Figure 3 [4].
The MC-HPDC process has shown excellent potential as a physical recycling technology
high grade Mg-alloy scrap. Intensive shearing was used to optimize the MC-HPDC process
in order to eliminate the casting defects. To optimize the process, the parameters were
altered by reducing the die filling time, changing the intensifier position, changing the die
temperature to 180⁰C and melting temperatures range to 620-625⁰C. Grain refinement and
morphology changes were accomplished and as a result, the hot cracking was eliminated.
3
Figure 3. Shoulder cracks in the MC-HPDC recycled AM series magnesium scrap prior
to optimization [4]
Susceptibility to hot cracking in weldments of 230 super alloys was performed by Cheng
et al. The specimen was welded by Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) and Plasma Arc
Welding (PAW) and then heat treatments were applied in two ways for stress relief: (1)
rapid heating to 1245 C and maintain at the same temperature for 30 min, and then
quenching in water (2) rapid heating to 1120C and maintain at the same temperature for 30
min, and then quenching in water. It was observed that all these cracks were in micro-sizes
and parallel to grain boundary as shown the microstructure of HAZ (heat affected zone) in
Figure 4 [5].
4
Figure 4. Hot cracks in Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) of gas tungsten arc welding
From previous studies, there have been several phenomena linked to hot tearing as shown
in Figure 5. However, these two include lack of feeding, and tensile stress and strain in the
solid state. First, when liquid flows into mushy zone and after dendrite formation, in the
localized area, liquid becomes isolated and can no longer be compensated by the flow of
liquid. Secondly, tensile stress and strain is caused by volumetric changes, which
produced thermal contraction that led to hot tearing [6,7].
5
Figure 5. Dendritic solidification along with possible hot tearing phenomena in casting
[6]
6
1.1 HOT TEARING EVALUATION METHODS
There are several methods that have been employed to evaluate hot tearing propensity of
die casting alloys that include Constrained Rod Casting (CRC), Crack-Ring, Horizontal
Bar, T-Shape, and Ring Mold. The CRC, Horizontal Bar, and Ring Mold Methods
typically employed in the gravity die casting process. CRC has evolved as the most
common method, and has been used in several studies to evaluate hot tearing for die casting
alloys. The design of a typical CRC test mold consists of rods of varying lengths with each
rod having a bulbous or restraint ball at the end as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Experimental set up of constrained rod casting [8]
7
Upon casting, the molten metal fills the runner, rods, and rod ends. As cooling,
solidification and shrinkage occur, tensile stresses and strains develop along the length of
the rods because of the constraint provided by the solidifying vertical runner bar and
bulbous rod ends. The longer the rod, the greater the stresses and strains that develop. The
hot tearing propensity of casting alloys is evaluated using these rods at various pouring
temperatures as hot tearing is visually observed shown in Figure 1. The drawbacks of the
CRC method are that results are not universally applicable, because there is no standardized
CRC mold design (dimensions or number of rods), and the test results are semi-quantitative
at best [8].
There is currently a great deal of effort being expended on the development of new light
metal alloys (aluminum and magnesium based) for high pressure die casting of automotive,
sporting goods, electronics, and aerospace components. However, evaluation of the hot
tearing characteristics of new alloys using the CRC method does not yield a good
quantitative measure of hot tearing propensity, and the CRC testing methodologies and
mold designs published in the literature are inconsistent. Furthermore, there is no evidence
that any engineering design has been employed in the design of the CRC molds described
in the literature.
8
To address these issues, the objectives of this research are first to design and develop a new
CRC mold (Enhanced Constrained Rod Casting) based on the engineering principles for
molten metal flow in die casting alloys. The second objective is to conduct experimental
studies on new light metal alloys (aluminum and magnesium based) using the Enhanced
Constrained Rod Casting mold.
1.2 SCOPE OF RESEARCH
Many researchers, which include Argo et al. [1], Cao et al. [2], Zhou et al. [3] etc., have
used CRC as a method to evaluate the hot tearing propensity of die casting alloys. The
fundamental issues with current liquid metal feeding concepts are when the liquid metal
drops through a straight vertical sprue, the air is aspirated and often oxidized in contact
with mold material (steel), which is different from liquid metal in a tapered downsprue. In
addition to that, abrupt changes in direction of liquid metal flow at the bottom of the sprue
causes turbulence (unsteady) and air aspiration resulting in formation of inclusions, as well
as slowing the velocity of liquid metal as shown in Figure 7. The unsteady flow might
develop bubbles that could promote porosity and other casting defects [7].
Cao et al., Li S., and others have used threaded steel screw to measure the contraction
forces with a load cell during solidification of CRC mold casting. However, the concern
is that steel has a high coefficient of linear thermal expansion, which varies at elevated
temperatures. As liquid metal solidified at varying temperatures, the measured forces
9
differ due to thermal expansion with a steel threaded screw during contraction and
shrinkage. These uncertainties in measurement of forces have caused some unreliability
in previously collected force data [8,9,10].
Figure 7. Air entrapment and unsteady flow in CRC
10
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the current research are as follows:
 Design and manufacture a mold (Enhanced Constrained Rod Casting-ECRC) for
hot tearing evaluation method that fills all rods as concurrently as possible to
minimize the heat loss and avoid air entrapment during mold filling. It also
solidifies at uniform cooling rate.
 Set up an experimental method to study hot tearing of different materials that
include - A206.2, Test-A , A380, and AT72 alloys.
 The selection of A206.2 and A380 alloys were chosen as baseline alloys because
there were existing hot tearing work reported in the literature. A206.2 is known to
have high propensity to hot tearing. A380 alloy is widely used to produce
automotive parts and considered to be good alloy in terms of hot tearing propensity.
A206.2 and A380 alloys will validate the ECRC mold design. Test-A (Aluminum)
and AT729 (Magnesium) alloys are new alloys that had never been tested for hot
tearing before.
 Develop a new measurement technique and replace threaded steel screws has high
coefficient of linear thermal expansion 7.3 (10−6 𝑖𝑛/𝑖𝑛°𝐹). Find rod that has low
coefficient of linear thermal expansion to measure thermal contraction forces
during contraction and shrinkage.
11
 Run experiments on alloys A206.2, A380, Test-A, and AT72 and measure
temperatures and contraction forces during solidification phases.
 Evaluate and analyze data to understand hot tearing characteristics of A206.2, Test-
A-alloy, A380, and AT72.
 Investigate influence of temperatures at various pouring temperatures for A206.2
A380, Test-A-alloy, and AT72, keeping mold cavity at room temperature (25.5°C).
 Characterize hot tearing phenomena which vary for different alloys from the graph
of cooling curves and contraction forces, which are a function of time.
 Develop numerical models for CRC and ECRC (proposed enhanced constrained
rod casting) to optimize the flow and perform comparative analysis using
MagmaSoft. Also, perform further simulation on ECRC model to study porosity
shrinkage, hotspot, and micro-porosity.
 Develop a Finite Element model of ECRC mold and perform thermal and structural
analysis to predict total thermal strain in casting using ANSYS.
 Evaluate existing hot tearing predictive models that include Niyama criterion, RDG
(Rappaz Drezet Gremaud) criterion, and Clyne and Davies criterion to study
shrinkage porosity, thermal strain, and Hot Tearing Susceptibility (HTS) index to
validate experimental studies.
 Use hot tearing predictive models and numerical analysis and simulation results to
validate experimental studies.
12
1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLGY
The following methodologies are pursued in order to achieve the research objectives. A
schematic illustration of methodologies is illustrated in Figure 8.
 Develop analytical and numerical models for CRC (constrained rod casting) and ECRC
(proposed enhanced constrained rod casting) to design and optimize the flow and
perform comparative analysis using MagmaSoft.
 Develop a solid model of newly designed casting part. Create left and right mold
cavities of new part and engineering drawings for both cavities. Manufacture new book
mold assembly of P20 tool steel to evaluate hot tearing of A206.2, A380, Test-A
(Aluminum), and AT729 (Magnesium) die casting alloys.
 Develop an experimental plan and equipment for experimental studies. These consist
of a book mold, load cell, K-type thermo-couples, control-switch, quartz rod with
grooves, bracket, temperature data logger, and data acquisition system.
 Quartz rods with grooves have been selected for measuring thermal contraction forces,
which has a very small coefficient of linear thermal expansion of 0.43 - 0.79
(10−6 𝑖𝑛/𝑖𝑛°𝐹) compare to threaded steel rod of 7.3 (10−6 𝑖𝑛/𝑖𝑛°𝐹)[11].
 Setup experimental devices to measure thermal contraction forces and temperatures
with respect to time during solidification phases of liquid metal cooling.
13
 Run experimental studies of die casting A206.2, A380, and Test-A (Al) alloys at
pouring temperatures of 700°C, 750°C, and 800°C. Perform experimental studies of
AT72 die casting alloy at pouring temperatures of 675°C, 710°C, and 750°C.
 Evaluate cooling temperatures and thermal contraction forces data as function of time
for A206.2 A380, Test-A-alloy, and AT72. Also, characterize the hot tearing predictive
models for shrinkage porosity and thermal strain.
 Examine cast parts for hot cracking and perform comparative analysis on measured
data to predict hot tearing characteristics.
 Develop a Finite Element model of ECRC mold and perform thermal and structural
analysis simulation to predict total thermal strain in die casting of A206.2, A380, Test-
A-alloy, and AT72 alloys using ANSYS.
 Develop a finite element model of constrained rod casting (CRC) and Enhanced
constrained rod casing (ECRC) using MagmaSoft in predict fluid flow velocity, hot
spot, filling time, solidification times and porosity defects.
14
Figure 8. A schematic illustration of methodologies for hot tearing evaluation methods
15
1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION
The dissertation is divided into 6 chapters and an appendix.
 Chapter 1 introduces of hot tearing and research approach.
 Chapter 2 describes literature research and previous research work, which covers hot
tearing evaluation methods, influence of Cu, Si, Fe, and grain refiners in aluminum
and magnesium die casting alloys. It also covers about the thermo-mechanical
modeling and simulation of die casting alloys.
 Chapter 3 covers the theoretical background of hot tearing formation and
characteristics of hot tearing in casting.
 Chapter 4 describes the development of book mold assembly, hot tearing evaluation
methods, and experimental studies in predicting hot tearing of A206.2, A380, Test-
A-alloy, and AT72 alloys.
 Chapter 5 covers the thermo-mechanical modeling of enhanced constrained rod
casting (ECRC) using ANSYS. It also covers finite element modeling and
simulation of constrained rod casting (CRC) and enhanced constrained rod casting
(ECRC) using MagmaSoft to perform comparative analysis.
 Chapter 6 includes the conclusions and future research possibilities for
improvements.
 Appendices include all of the supporting materials include drawings and data from
experimental studies that were used in this research.
16
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This section summarizes the information published during the past 10-15 years about hot
tearing defects in die casting of aluminum and magnesium alloys. Included is a brief
description of hot tearing, and an overview of experimental methods for evaluating the hot
tearing propensity of alloys, process-related factors reported to influence hot tearing, and
alloy characteristics which affect hot tearing. Additionally, numerical and analytical
models proposed for evaluating and predicting hot tearing are reviewed.
2.1 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF HOT TEARING
Several methods have been employed to experimentally evaluate the hot tearing propensity
of die casting alloys. These method include constrained rod casting (CRC), crack-ring,
horizontal bar, T-shape, and ring mold. The CRC, horizontal bar, and ring mold methods
typically employ the gravity die casting process. The crack ring and T-shape methods
discussed utilized sand molds. The CRC method is often used for evaluation of die casting
alloys [11, 12]. An overview of the alloys evaluated for hot tearing (by author), and the
experimental methods employed, follows.
17
2.1.1 CONSTRAINED ROD CASTING (CRC) FOR EVALUATION OF Mg-Al ALLOYS
Argo et al. [13] investigated casting process parameters of AJ52 high temperature Mg-Al-
Sr alloy using constrained rod casting (CRC). The investigation included castability index,
creep resistance, and hot tear ratings for the Mg-Al alloys shown in Table 1. The authors
reported that the main factors that affected the castability were: freezing range (difference
between liquidus and solidus temperatures on the phase diagram), specific heat, fluidity,
wettability, and thermal conductivity of the alloy. The freezing range of the alloys
considered had a greater positive influence on castability than other casting characteristics.
However, it was discovered that longer freezing range alloys may be more susceptible to
hot tearing than alloys having a short freezing range. In addition to freezing range, another
factor they reported as influencing hot tearing is the amount of eutectic present at grain
boundaries. It was observed that AZ91D alloy had longer freezing range and less
susceptibility to hot tearing than AJ50x alloys with smaller freezing range.
18
Table 1. Castability Index for Mg Die-casting Alloys [13]
An oil pan and valve cover were die-cast of AJ52x alloys for thin wall (< 2mm), medium
wall (5 mm) and thick wall (> 5 mm) using a cold chamber machine. Hot tearing was
exhibited on the thin wall (< 2mm) wall cover of AJ50x and AJ51x alloys. No hot tears
were found on the medium wall and thick wall (> 5 mm) valve cover of AJ52x.
Considering all of the casting characteristics, the castability index was developed for thin
walled, medium walled, and thick walled castings as shown in Table 1.
Figure 9 shows one of the constrained rod casting (CRC) experimental castings and the
associated hot tears at the transition from the runner bar to the rods (center and right of the
photo) used by Argo, et al. A larger overview of a typical constrained rod casting die
cavity is shown in Figure 10. The design of a typical CRC cavity consists of rods of
varying length, with each rod having a bulbous end larger in diameter than the rod. Upon
casting, the cavity fills the runner, rods, and rod ends. As cooling, solidification and
19
shrinkage occurs, tensile stresses and strains develop along the length of the rods because
of the constraint provided by the solidifying runner bar and bulbous rod ends. The longer
the rod, the greater the stresses and strains that develop. The hot tearing propensity of an
alloy is evaluated relative to the CRC rod length at which hot tearing can be observed.
Alloys that demonstrate hot tearing even in the short rods have a high propensity for hot
tearing; those that only hot tear at the longest rod lengths are considered to have a low
propensity for hot tearing. There does not appear to be a standard geometry for CRC mold
cavities. Therefore, the CRC test is typically a comparative test only; it is not numerically
absolute, or quantitatively very precise.
Figure 9. Hot tearing in the longest rod [13]
Cao et al. [14] also studied the hot tearing of Mg-Al alloys using the gravity die casting
process with a steel mold for constrained rod casting (CRC). In addition to the
conventional CRC die cavity, this tool was cleverly instrumented with a load cell and
20
thermocouples to obtain a cooling curve (temperature vs. time) and constrained rod load
(load vs. time) data. Magnesium-Aluminum alloys ranging from 0.25 to 8 wt% Al content
were used to study the hot tearing effects on binary Mg-Al alloys. Hot tearing
susceptibility occurred sharply with Mg-1wt% Al alloys and as contents of Al alloy
increased, the susceptibility decreased significantly and did not exhibit any hot tearing
beyond 8 wt% Al. Boron Nitride (BN) coating of 100 𝜇𝑚 reduced the hot tearing
susceptibility significantly compare to BN coating of 40 𝜇𝑚.
Figure 10. Steel mold for constrained rod casting to determine hot tearing [14]
Zheng et al. [15] investigated a quantitative method for determining the hot tearing in Mg-
Al binary alloys. This study is similar to Cao et al. and constrained rod casting was
employed. The steel mold was coated with Boron Nitride (BN) and preheated at
temperatures between 250 and 500 °C. The pouring temperature was kept 80 °C above the
21
liquids temperature. The contraction stresses induced during solidification shrinkage were
evaluated during the CRC trials. Hot tears observed were correlated to the plots of
contraction forces and temperatures as a function of time. Hot cracks were measured by a
wax penetration method, and crack size was determined using volume of total cracks. For
Mg-1wt% Al alloy, when mold temperatures were increased, the hot tear crack sizes
decreased. When mold temperature reached 500 °C, no cracks were found. For Mg-3wt%
Al alloy, no cracks appeared at mold temperature of 350 °C. There were no cracks for
Mg-9 wt% Al at mold temperature of 250 °C. Higher cooling rates developed larger
temperature gradients over uneven shapes of the casting, which promoted thermal stresses
resulting in hot tears.
Zhou et al. [16] evaluated the influence of Zn on hot tearing susceptibility of Mg-Zn binary
alloys and effects of the friction between mold walls and constrained rod casting. The
pouring temperature was used 80°C above liquidus temperature. A thin layer of boron
nitride coating was used before pouring. The mold temperatures were used from 200 to
550 °C. It was observed that varying mold temperatures and content of Zn had
considerable effects on hot tearing as shown in Table 2. The Mg-6 wt% Zn did not exhibit
hot tearing at mold temperature of 450 °C. As the content of Zn increased, no cracks were
found at mold temperature of 450 °C. Higher the cooling rates mean lower the mold
temperature. These authors concluded that at higher cooling rates, alloys will be more
prone to hot tearing [16].
22
Table 2. Influence of Zn on Mg-Zn Alloy at Different Mold Temperatures [16]
Kamga et al. [17] investigated the hot tearing of aluminum-copper B206 alloys with iron
and silicon additions using constrained rod casting (CRC) with nominal length of 50.8 mm
(Bar-A), 88.9 mm (Bar-B), 127 mm (Bar-C), and 165.1 mm (Bar-D). Also, the purpose
was to understand the characteristic of B206 with higher iron contents and combined
effects of iron and silicon. The B206 alloys was modified using Al-1020 and commercial
master alloys (Al-50%Si, Al-25%Fe,Al-25%Mn, Al-50%Mg, and Al-50%Cu). After
chemical analysis using optical emission spectrometer, the compositions are shown in
Table 3 for experimental studies [17].
23
Table 3. B206 Alloys with Various Compositions [17]
In this experimental work, the constrained rod casting (CRC) mold was made of cast iron.
For each operation, the mold was cleaned and heated up to 200 °C and coated with graphite.
In the casting alloys, Al-5wt%Ti and 1wt%B were added as grain refinement. The melting
temperatures of alloys were maintained at 750 °C. Castings were removed from the mold
in temperature ranging 405 to 410 °C. Three castings were produced for each alloy. Un-
aided visual and microscopic inspections were performed for hot tears. Hot tears were
categorized based severity into four parts with assigned number for visual inspections,
these include surface tear (1), light tear (2), sever tear (3), and complete tear (4). A hot
tearing sensitivity (HTS) index was used along with visual inspections index to determine
the level of tears and is defined as [17]:
24
 D i  A Ci / Li
HTS  (2.1)
 D i  A 4 / Li
Where,
Ci =Hot tear severity values that are assigned using index i=A,B,C, and D
HTS=1 means all the bars have cracks and HTS=0 means no bars have cracks
It was observed that hot tearing was influenced by the iron content in the situations where
there were coarse grains. Alloys with more than 0.01 wt% Ti showed fine grains
microstructure; alloys with less than 0.01 wt% Ti showed coarse microstructure. The
longest bar exhibited cracks; there were no cracks on two shortest bars [17].
2.1.2 CRACK-RING FOR EVALUATION OF MG-9AL-XZn ALLOY
Wang et al. [18] used a crack-ring mold cavity design in sand casting to investigate hot
tearing in Mg-9Al-xZn alloys as shown in Figure 11. They discovered that zinc additions
decreased the solidus temperature and increased hot tearing susceptibility coefficient
(HSC) in alloys. The contents of Al and Zn lowered the melting point and alloys solidified
at eutectic stage. They reported that the grains could not form a dendrite network due to
low amount of remaining eutectic liquid. This promoted lack of strength during
solidification shrinkage and promoted the development of the thermal stress-induced
25
cracking. Hot-tearing susceptibility increased at 0.8 wt% Zn (Mg–9Al–0.8Zn) and
decreased when content exceeded 0.8 wt%Zn.
Wang et al. [19] further studied the effects of Zn and RE (rare earth elements) additions in
Mg-9Al alloys using crack ring mold. They found that Zn additions lowered the
solidifying temperature while RE additions had little effect. Hot tearing susceptibility
(HSC) increased of Mg-9Al alloys as Zn additions with low quantity of RE content.
Eutectic temperature decreased at grain boundaries due to Zn content [18, 19].
Figure 11. Crack-ring mold to determine hot tearing [18]
26
2.1.3 HORIZONTAL BAR FOR EVALUATION OF Mg ALLOY
Bichler et al. [20] experimented with the onset of hot tearing in AE42 alloy. This alloy
has high temperature strength compare to magnesium alloy (AZ91). AE42 magnesium
alloy was poured into a gravity die casting mold that consisted of a down-sprue and a long
horizontal bar as shown in Figure 12. The experiment was carried out using different mold
(140, 220, 300, 340, and 390 °C) and pouring temperatures (720, 740, and 765 °C). The
liquid metal started solidifying (directionally) from the horizontal bar through the down-
sprue and then into the mold cavity. The pouring cup solidified last. Hot tearing occurred
for all mold temperatures below 300 °C and pouring temperatures 720 °C and 740 °C at
the transition between down-sprue and horizontal bar. Axial contraction from horizontal
bar and down-sprue caused a resultant stress concentration at transitional point (90 °C),
where hot tearing was observed. As pouring temperature and mold temperature were
increased to 765 and 390 °C respectively, the hot tearing cracks vanished [20].
Bichler et al. [21], employed neutron diffraction techniques to measure the residual stresses
and strain in magnesium alloy (AZ91D) at the onset of hot tearing. The model is used
from their previous study shown in Figure 13. Pouring temperature was held at 720 °C.
Hot tearing formed at a mold temperature of 210 °C (Figure 5, Part a). When mold
temperature increased to 250 °C, the casting was less susceptible to hot tearing, (Figure 5,
Part b). Tensile residual strain was observed for (1 0 0) and (0 0 1) reflections, measured
27
by Neutron diffraction at mold temperature of 210 °C. The mixed strains were recorded
for (1 0 1) and (1 0 2) reflections. Similarly, Neutron diffraction strain mapping were
observed at mold temperature of 250 °C. The average strains were recorded for (1 0 0)
and (0 0 1) reflections. These two average strain values for casting with hot tear and
without hot tear are shown in Figure 14 [21].
Figure 12. A model of horizontal bar with downsprue [20]
Figure 13. Hot tearing effects at mold temperatures 210 and 250 °C [20]
28
Figure 14. Hot tearing at reflections (0 0 1) [21]
2.1.4 T-SHAPE FOR EVALUATION OF A206 ALLOY
Esfahani et al. [22] studied the hot tearing of A206 aluminum alloy using an instrumented
constrained T-shaped casting (ICTC) method, see Figure 15. Four pouring temperatures
(675, 700, 750, and 800 °C) were selected in this study. The cooling curve (temperature
vs. time) was used to analyze the events such as liquidus, solidus, and coherency, etc.
during the solidification. Tear formations were displayed with a Load-time curve. At
pouring temperature of 800 °C, a change in slope was observed between two curves T-t
and dT/dt-t, as shown in Figure 16. Hot tears were observed initially at pouring temperature
of 700 °C and largest cracks were noticed at 800 °C at the T-junction of the casting.
29
Figure 15. Schematic of instrumented constrained T-shaped casting [22]
Figure 16. Cooling curves T and dT/dt-t, hot tearing at 800 °C [22]
2.1.5 RING MOLD FOR EVALUATION OF AA1050 VIA ACOUSTIC EMISSION
Pekguleryuz et al. [23] performed Investigation of hot tearing in aluminum alloy AA1050
via Acoustic Emission (AE) and cooling curve analysis methods using a ring mold. The
experimental set up for a ring shaped mold is shown in Figure 17. AE method is an
approach which can detect the hot tearing using elastic waves. When a specimen is in non-
30
equilibrium, it goes through deformation and results in releasing the elastic strain energy,
which is detected as stress waves. The AE sensor converts the stress wave into a voltage
proportional to the magnitude of the stress wave. Also, during plastic deformation of
materials, there are many stress waves moving at the same speed, which superimposes
(amplifies) these waves, and then it is easy to detect by the AE sensor. Hot tearing
information was collected via AE and cooling curve analysis. The aluminum alloy
AA1050 has liquidus and solidus equilibrium temperatures of 659 °C and solidus 630 °C,
respectively. The non-equilibrium liquidus ranges from 652 to 659 °C. The solidus
temperature was 630 °C. The non-equilibrium freezing range varied from 43 to 99 °C.
Hot tearing initiated where the AE energy was over 600 energy units (e.u.) and frequency
range was from 110 to 140 kHz in zone II. Hot cracking occurred when AE energy was
over 650 energy units and average frequency range was from 111 to 145 kHz in zone III.
Hot tearing occurred at temperature ranging from 636 to 653 °C. The solidus ranged from
556 to 614 °C as shown in Figure 18. The fraction solid at the onset of hot tearing ranged
from 0.71 to 0.99. Addition of Fe in alloys slightly increased hot tearing.
31
Figure 17. Experimental set up of ring mold casting [23]
Figure 18. Hot tearing detection via AE method [23]
32
2.1.6 RING MOLD FOR EVALUATION OF Al-Cu AND Mg ALLOYS
Figure 19 shows the results obtained from ring mold testing for Al-Cu alloys. It indicates
that hot tearing susceptibility appeared to maximum at 0.5 % wt Cu. Smaller crack length
had 20 °C of melt superheat. The larger crack length had 100 °C of melt superheat. Hot
tearing susceptibility occurred to be a maximum at 3.5% wt. Cu content [24].
Figure 19. Crack length as function of Cu content in Al-Cu alloys [24]
Results from a ring mold test are presented in Figure 20. In Al-Mg alloys, the maximum
value for hot tearing appeared at 1% Mg content. Due to melt superheating, the larger
cracks were found at 100 °C and showed crack length as a function of magnesium content
[24].
33
Figure 20. Crack length as function of Mg content in Al-Mg alloys [24]
From Figure 19 and Figure 20, it can be concluded that as wt% of Cu and Mg content
increases, the hot tearing reaches a maximum and then starts decreasing. Alloys after
certain wt% will have smaller solidification range and more liquid available to feed the
high volume faction of solid. Generally, smaller solidification range will have less thermal
contraction in casting. As a result, a casting with better microstructures will be produced
[24].
2.2 NUMERICAL MODELING APPROACH AND SIMULATION
Sengupta et al. [25] studied hot tearing defects in ingot using ABAQUS software. They
simplified the model to a quarter section of geometry because of symmetry for simulation
of thermal and stress analysis. The 3D model consists of an ingot and a bottom block. For
the mesh of model, an 8-nodes gauss integration brick element was used. The element
34
sizes were carefully selected to provide constant thicknesses and refined mesh to the model.
Also, incremental time intervals have been used for casting speed and mold filling rates.
Since the casting process is time dependent, the heat transfer model considers the transient
and the varying temperature effect on the thermal and physical properties of alloys. In this
model, it is assumed that there is no flow of liquid metal to fill the mold but heat energy is
transferred through diffusion method. The nodes are set to solution domain set at initial
temperature of alloys. Figure 21 shows the 3D model with mesh and boundary conditions
for thermal analysis.
The model has predicted temperature and displacement measurements obtained from two
711 mm × 1680 mm AA5182 ingots, cast under different start-up conditions. These
conditions are produced by varying the bottom block filling rate and flow rate to achieve a
non-typical “cold” and a non-typical “hot”. The model predicted that both hot and cold cast
had the variation in plastic strain and stresses with respect to time. These two casts
developed tensile stresses due to impingement of the secondary cooling. Accumulation of
tensile plastic strains could form pores that lead to hot tearing. Future work is
recommended such as mesh refinements for optimization and elastic and plastic strain
behavior with respect to time [25].
35
Figure 21. A 3D model of ingot with bottom block and boundary conditions [25]
Lin et al. [26] discussed predicting hot tearing in steel using a damaged porosity based
model concept. In this study, MAGMA software was used to calculate the temperature
and feeding results (Porosity). These data were incorporated in FEM model as shown in
Figure 22 about the flow chart and details of the approach.
Figure 22. Hot tearing modeling approach [26]
36
The hot tear is predicted by using damaged porosity equation 𝑔𝑝,𝑑
𝑡
= ∫𝑡 𝑔𝑠 [𝜀̇𝑥𝑥 + 𝜀̇𝑦𝑦 + 𝜀̇𝑧𝑧 ]𝑑𝑡 (2.2)
𝑓
Where,
𝑔𝑠 = solid fraction, 𝜀̇𝑥𝑥 , 𝜀̇𝑦𝑦 , 𝜀̇𝑧𝑧 = visco-plastic strain rates, and 𝑡𝑓 = feeding cut off time.
The above equation can calculate the volume fraction of porosity based on visco-plastic
model. The solid fraction cut off is 0.75. The mold material is important factor to consider
in steel casting since the casting interacts with the mold and may apply resistance during
contraction. The model used surface elements (SANDSURF) to replace the sand mold.
The surface elements transfer normal forces to casting surface and predict the displacement
and plastic strain. The damaged porosity model can predict hot tearing at some locations
but it did not fully correlate with cracks that were found at actual casting. See below hot
cracks in casting and modeling simulation results in Figure 23 [26].
37
Figure 23. Comparison between hot tear in casting and simulation results [26]
Ridolfi et al. [27] studied the formation of cracks in steel casting using software MSC Marc.
A thermo-mechanical model of 2D was developed based on traveling slice method.
Quadrilateral plain strain elements and eight-nodes were used in modeling and analysis.
The model was divided into mold domain and steel domain. Due to symmetry of the part,
one quarter of Model with boundary conditions and mesh are presented in Figure 24. The
analysis predicted the temperature distribution per cooling rate, stress, and strain during
the solidification process [27].
Figure 24. A 2D model with mesh and boundary conditions [27]
38
2.3 HOT TEARING PREDICTIVE MODELS
Feurer [28] proposed a hot tearing criterion model to predict tear formation in the casting.
He investigated the feeding characteristics and hot tearing properties and found that the
poor feeding is caused by solidification shrinkage because of the interlinking of dendrites.
However, the dendrites act as porous filters. The residual liquid is fed through these
dendrites porous filters. Insufficient feeding to the casting may promote the volumetric
shrinkage. If the shrinkage velocity exceeds the maximum flow rate of feeding, hot tear
may occur. However, Feurer postulates that hot cracking susceptibility (HCS) is possible
if [28]:
𝑆𝑃𝑉 ≥ |𝑆𝑅𝐺| (2.3)
The maximum volumetric flow rate per volume is defined by
1 𝜕𝑉 𝜕𝑙𝑛𝑉
𝑆𝑃𝑉 = 𝑉 ( 𝜕𝑡 ) = ( ) (2.4)
𝜕𝑡
Where, 𝑆𝑃𝑉= the maximum volumetric flow rate through dendrite networks, 𝑉 = Volume,
𝑡 = time
The volumetric solidification shrinkage is caused by density difference between liquid and
solid. It is defined by
𝜕𝑙𝑛𝑉 ̅
1 𝜕𝜌
𝑆𝑅𝐺 = ( ) = − 𝜌 𝜕𝑡 (2.5)
𝜕𝑡
39
Where, 𝑆𝑅𝐺 = Volumetric shrinkage during solidification, 𝜌̅ = 𝜌𝐿 𝑔𝐿 + 𝜌𝑆 (1 − 𝑔𝐿 )𝑉
𝑉= volume of solidify elements, 𝜌𝐿 = density of the liquid, 𝜌𝑆 = density of solid phase
Clyne and Davies [29] defined the hot cracking index as a ratio of a vulnerability time (𝑡𝑉 )
when hot cracking may develop (liquid fraction from 0.01 to 0.10) to the time of stress
relief time (𝑡𝑅 ) during mass feeding (liquid fraction from 0.1 to 0.6) as shown in Figure
25. The hot cracking susceptibility (HCS) index is defined [29, 30]:
𝑡 𝑡 −𝑡
𝐻. 𝐶. 𝑆. = 𝑡𝑉 = 𝑡99 −𝑡90 (2.6)
𝑅 90 40
Where, (𝑡𝑉 ) = the vulnerable time period when cracks can propagate, (𝑡𝑅 ) = the time period
for stress-relaxation during liquid feeding, 𝑓𝑆 = volume fraction of solid, 𝑡99 = time at 𝑓𝑆 is
0.99, 𝑡90 = time at 𝑓𝑆 is 0.90, 𝑡40 = time at 𝑓𝑆 is 0.4.
Figure 25. Determination of hot cracking susceptibility [30]
40
Katgerman [31] continued work on the hot cracking index based on Feurer [28] and Clyne
et al. [29]; if after feeding is inadequate from meniscus, then results of volume reduction
could cause stresses that promote cracks. The vulnerable time proportionality was
changed from 𝑡99 − 𝑡90 to 𝑡99 − 𝑡𝑐𝑟 . Hot cracking (HC) index defined as [31]:
𝑡 −𝑡
𝐻. 𝐶. = 𝑡99−𝑡 𝑐𝑟 (2.7)
𝑐𝑟 40
Where, 𝑡𝑐𝑟 = time at feeding becomes inadequate, 𝑡99 = time at 𝑓𝑆 is 0.99, 𝑡90 = time at 𝑓𝑆 is
0.9, 𝑡40 = = time at 𝑓𝑆 is 0.4.
The hot tearing index improved using coherency temperature defines where dendrite
network begins to form. Considering the coherency temperature (𝑡𝐶𝑜ℎ ), then hot cracking
index is defined by:
𝑡 −𝑡
𝐻. 𝐶. = 𝑡 99−𝑡 𝑐𝑟 (2.8)
𝑐𝑟 𝐶𝑜ℎ
Where, 𝑡𝐶𝑜ℎ = coherency temperature, 𝑡𝑐𝑟 = time at feeding becomes inadequate, 𝑡99 = time
at 𝑓𝑆 is 0.99.
Hatami et al. [32] proposed new criteria based on theories of Feurer [28], Clyne et al. [29],
and Katgerman [31]. The new theory considers a volume element in mushy zone, called
volume solid fraction for hot cracking simulation. If there is no flow considered, then the
41
zero flow point in mushy zone is known as solid fraction for rigidity. This new criteria
postulates that if a neighboring element has a solid of fraction less than the rigidity point,
the local liquid feeding is possible and no cracks will occur. And if they exceed the solid
fraction of rigidity, then liquid feeding is not possible and hot cracks may occur. Such hot
cracking susceptibility (HCS) is determined on each element:
𝑡 −𝑡
𝐻. 𝐶. = 𝑡99 −𝑡𝑐𝑟 (2.9)
99 𝑐𝑟
Where, 𝑇99 − 𝑇𝑐𝑟 = critical time at which element transmits stresses, 𝑇𝑐𝑟 = time at feeding
becomes inadequate, 𝑇99 = time at 𝑓𝑆 is 0.99.
Campbell [33] suggested a modified version of hot tearing criterion for susceptibility as
the product of accumulated thermal strain at a casting hot spot and ratio of vulnerability to
stress relief. It was only suitable for qualitative measurement in different alloys as defined
below.
𝛼∆𝑇𝐿𝑎 𝑡
𝐶𝑆𝐶 = ∗ 𝑡𝑉 (2.10)
𝑙2 𝑅
Where, 𝛼= Coefficient of thermal expansion, ∆𝑇= undercooling temperature, 𝐿= Casting
𝛼∆𝑇𝐿𝑎
length, 𝑎= grain size, 𝑙= Length of hot spot, =Accumulated thermal strain at hot spot
𝑙2
𝑡𝑉
= Ratio of vulnerability (𝑡𝑉 ) to stress relief (𝑡𝑅 )
𝑡𝑅
42
Kamga et al. [34] modified the hot tearing index proposed by Katgerman [31]. The new
hot tearing index is defined as follows [34]:
𝑇 −𝑇0.01
𝐻. 𝐶. = 𝑇𝑐𝑟 (2.11)
𝐶𝑜ℎ −𝑇𝑐𝑟
Where, 𝑇𝐶𝑜ℎ = dendrite coherency temperature, 𝑇𝑐𝑟 = = temperature below at feeding
becomes inadequate, 𝑇0.01= = temperature at volume fraction liquid to 0.01.
The Niyama criterion was developed by E. Niyama in 1982 to predict shrinkage porosity.
The Niyama is defined as [73]
𝐺
𝑁𝑦 = (2.12)
√𝑇̇
Where 𝐺 is the thermal gradient and 𝑇̇ is the cooling rate. Niyama criterion is based on
strain rate. If a casting is going under applied tensile strain, the pressure drop in mushy
zone is increased and then pores will grow without shrinkage and without deformation of
casting. This shrinkage porosity will be perpendicular to applied strain which will promote
hot tearing. Carlson et al., investigated shrinkage Porosity of WCB steel and correlated
simulation results from MagmaSoft with experimental studies. AZ91D simulation showed
shrinkage porosity. This demonstrates that Niyama criterion can be applicable to a wide
variety of alloys in predicting shrinkage porosity [74].
43
In RDG (Rappaz Drezet Gremaud) criterion, deformation is perpendicular to thermal
gradient regardless whether it corresponds to columnar or equiaxed dendrites. Hot tearing
will not occur if mushy zone can sustain some deformation and its strain rates remain low
enough in order to permit liquid feeding.
In the RDG hot tearing criterion [75], the depression pressure, ∆𝑝, over the mushy zone:
∆𝑝 = ∆𝑝𝑠ℎ + ∆𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑐 − 𝜌𝑔ℎ (2.13)
Where, ∆𝑝𝑠ℎ and ∆𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑐 are the pressure drop contributions in the mushy zone associated
with the solidification shrinkage and the deformation caused by fluid flow, respectively, ρ
is density, g is gravitational constant, and h is the distance below the liquid melt level.
1
Hot cracking susceptibility (HCS): = 𝜀̇ (2.14)
𝑚𝑎𝑥
Drezet et al. used RDG criterion to determine HCS for welding of aluminum alloys.
Influence of filler content on HCS values and solidification path determined. However, the
disadvantage is that this method does not account for development of localized strain at
microscopic level [75].
44
2.4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Hot tearing susceptibilities of the casting alloys investigated experimentally are
summarized in Table IV, listed sequentially based on evaluation techniques. Casting
characteristics such as specific heat, thermal conductivity, longer freezing range, pouring
temperature, and mold temperatures influence the hot tearing. Hot tearing susceptibility
for Mg-Al increased at 1wt% Al due to the development of larger temperature gradients in
constrained rod casting (CRC). As the mold temperatures increased, the crack sizes
decreased smaller temperature gradient. Similarly, for Mg-Zn alloys, the hot tearing rose
sharply at 0.8 wt% Zn and decreased when content exceeding 0.8 wt% Zn. For AZ91D
alloys, the hot tearing formed at 210 °C of mold temperature. However, at 250 °C of mold
temperature, casting was less susceptible to hot tearing. A206 alloys had largest crack at
pouring temperature of 800 °C.
45
Table 4. Hot tearing Susceptibilities to Die Casting Alloys
46
Eskin et al. [35] summarized some of the measured hot tearing susceptibilities of Al–Cu,
Al–Mg, Al–Si, Al–Fe, Al–Mn, and Al–Zn alloys as shown in Table V. Most alloys at a
certain composition have a tendency of maximum hot cracking. This phenomenon is
represented by 𝜆 (lambda) curve as shown in Figure 26. For Al-Si alloys, hot tearing rises
to a maximum at 0.7 wt% Si [35, 36].
Table 5. Hot tearing Susceptibilities [35]
47
Figure 26. 𝜆 (Lambda) curve [36]
Argo et al. [13] discussed the freezing range that influences solidification processes. From
the experimental studies it was found that freezing range of AZ91D was the longest
compare to AM50 as shown in Table 6. Mg-Al-Sr had larger freezing range than AM50A.
Because longer freezing range promotes hot tearing due to surface tension and eutectic
present in dendrite network. In general, an alloy with longer freezing range may be prone
to hot tearing than alloy with shorter freezing range. However, experimental results
demonstrated that AZ91D had lower hot tearing rating than AM50A. A380 alloy had the
lowest hot tear rating [13].
48
Table 6. Hot tearing Ratings [13]
It was observed from hot tearing evaluation studies that hot tearing is typically experienced
at corners or fillets of castings. This is caused by development of localized strain, which
is the result of combined thermal contraction from down-sprue and longest bar or
horizontal bar (in CRC experiments). For complex or irregular shape of geometries, higher
cooling rates may develop larger temperature gradient, which generates a greater
propensity for hot tearing. Experimental studies evaluating the hot tearing propensity of
die casting alloys in the high pressure die casting process were not found. Models
developed for predicting hot tearing lend insight into the process conditions and alloy
characteristics which influence hot tearing.
49
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In this chapter, the theoretical background of hot tearing formation, characteristics of hot
tearing, and strain theory that develop in the casting are presented.
3.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOT TEARING
Hot tearing is a casting defect that occurs near solidus temperature at late film stage, where
the liquid films are still present at grain boundaries despite the completion of solidification
as shown in Figure 28. Hot tearing is easily identified with one or more characteristics that
are presented in Table 7 [37, 39, 42].
50
Table 7. Characteristic of Hot tearing [37,39,42]
Hot Tearing Characteristics
 Forms a ragged, branching crack

 Main tear and its numerous minor off
Visual appearance shoots generally follow the
intergranular paths
 Reveals a dendrite morphology (see
Surface failures by microscope Fig. 9)
 Heavily oxidized with higher
temperature alloys such as steel
 When the material is still at incoherent

Time stage
 Close to completion of solidification
Location  It is often at a hot spot

 Where contraction strain from
adjoining extensive thinner sections
may be concentrated
Temperature  At or just above solidus temperature
(Fig. 7)
 Highly specific to certain materials
Defects  Uniaxial tensile failure in weak
material
 Feeding problem related to hydrostatic
stresses causing pores in liquid phase.
51
Campbell (2003) described that dendrites open a pathway for draining of eutectic liquid,
which had successfully formed the tear in Al-10Cu alloys. Figure 27 shows a scanning
electron microscope view of the hot tearing surface of an Al–3% Cu alloy [37,39].
Figure 27. Hot tearing in Al-10Cu alloy (Spittle and Cushway 1983) [37,39].
Pellini (1952) used the radiographic method and thermal measurements to obtain the data
in order to predict the hot tearing in steel casting of various carbon contents ranging from
0.03 to 1.00 percent. The casting (the length of casting was reduced to 16” from 24” to
minimize the contraction) was poured in a restraining bar and sulphur or phosphorus
content was added. High quantities were included to see the effects produced by these
elements in the casting. It was observed that each element produced tears in the shortened
casting, which began approximately 50-75⁰C below the solidus (Fe-C) temperature as
shown in Figure 28 [37,41,42].
52
Note: solid circles – no tears, x – hot tears
Figure 28. Hot tearing at various carbon contents in Fe-C diagram [41].
3.2 STAGES OF CRYSTAL GROWTH SOLDIFICATION PROCESS
There are various stages in the solidification processes, as liquid metal cools, it starts with
crystallization at liquidus temperature as shown in Figure 29. From the start of the
crystallization process to a complete solid occurs in between liquidus and solidus
temperatures. Immediately after the initial stage, as dendrite networks have been formed
and crystals cannot move around in liquid metal, then early films are formed. As liquid
metal cools down further, the late film stages are formed. At this stage, hot tearing
53
develops due to lack of feeding in some parts of castings. The tensile strength and
elongation describe the effects of the resulting microstructure. The shrinkage starts
decreasing from the early film stage to the late film stage. Hot tearing tendency at late
stage of dendrite formation can be influenced and varied by die casting alloys and its
composition. Graphical descriptions of this process are shown in Figure 29 and Figure 30
[31,44].
Figure 29. Start of crystallization, crystal growth, and film stages in solidification [44]
54
There are four stages of solidification. At stage 1, the primary dendrites are freely
dispersed in liquid. Both dendrites and liquid are capable of relative movement. At stage
2, the liquid is moving freely at coherency stage between interlocking dendrites and liquid.
Healing is possible if cracks develop. At stage 3, the grain boundaries are in an advanced
stage of development, and this is considered to be at critical solidification range (semi-
solid), where the liquid is not moving freely. No healing of cracks is possible if significant
strain developed in the casting. At stage 4, the casting alloy is fully solidified. The a-c
represents the coherent temperature and a-e is critical temperature [43].
Figure 30. Stages of hot tearing in binary Alloys [43]
55
The material is susceptible to hot tearing once it has reached the coherency temperature at
stage 2. However, further developments of microstructures prevent the free flow of liquid
through interlocking dendrites. The accommodation of strains within mushy zone is not
possible, since the healing could not occur with remaining liquid at stage 3, which is
considered a critical solidification range. The relative movement of dendrite and liquid is
not possible; it can only accommodate low tensile strain, see Figure 31. The other
possibility is that the solidus temperature may depressed by undercooling and lack of
diffusion, which will promote hot tearing in the casting [37, 38, 52].
Figure 31. Modeling of dendrites at coherency states [38]
56
3.3 FORMATION OF DENDRITE MICROSTRUCTURES
Formation of a dendritic microstructure is characteristic of aluminum alloys as
solidification takes place. Secondary dendrite arm spacing is known as dendrite arm
spacing (DAS). Secondary dendrite arm spacing is one of the most important length
parameters, other than grain size in the casting. One of the most important factors that may
influence the casting is DAS. DAS determines the microstructures of cast parts. The more
dendrite arm spacing per unit volume means better mechanical properties of alloys, see
Figure 32.
The secondary dendrite arm spacing is controlled by the coarsening process and cooling
rate. During the coarsening process, the dendrite arms grow at the tip of the dendrites. The
surface energy is reduced only if dendrites surface area is reduced. As a result, the small
arms go into solution while the larger arms grow independently and increase the spacing
between the arms. Finally, DAS is controlled by solidification time [37].
The relationship between DAS and local solidification time can be described as follows:
2  K * t nf (3.1)
Where,  2 is dendrite arm spacing in micrometer, 𝑡𝑓 is local solidification time in seconds,
K is a proportionality to coefficient and 𝑛 is between 0.3-0.4. For Al-Cu alloys, K is 7.5
and 𝑛 is 0.39 respectively [1,3].
57
Figure 32. Formation of grains and arm spacing [37]
3.4 STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE
Flinn established the stress-strain relation as a function of temperature by considering a
metal bar of aluminum (7% Cu, 2% Zn, balance Al), which is applied to a tension load
starting from the liquid state. The phase of metal changes as temperature was falling, and
five stages were observed from this investigation as shown in Figure 33 [42].
58
Figure 33. Phase changes in stresses-strain curves at different temperatures [42]
Step 1 – Completely Liquid: The liquid metal follows the motion of end plate. Hot tear
is not possible to form in liquid, since the cavity would be filled quickly. Any shrinkage
would be healed by liquid.
Step 2 – Mostly Liquid with some solid: At this stage, the bar is under stress and may
develop ruptures. Adequate liquid is available to fill those ruptures.
Step 3 – Mostly Solid with some liquid: Solid crystals start forming a network at a certain
stage of solidification, which carry some strength. The material becomes coherent, where
the solid content is about 50% to 90% depending upon crystallization growth. The casting
ruptures under low stresses, while some liquid metal is still present. All these tears cannot
59
be filled by isolated patches of liquid metal. The first defect is encountered, which is called
hot tearing. This occurs just above or at the solidus.
Step 4 – Solid (Plastic range): At this stage, the ductility is high and material deformation
takes place at low stresses. No cracking takes place, unless it is brittle at this temperature.
Another phenomenon is creep, if a steady load is applied to the bar, the grains will elongate
as a function of time.
Step 5 – Solid (Elastic range): At this stage, as temperature is lowered, the grains elongate.
Re-crystallization does not take place but flow stress increases, However, when
transitioning from plastic to elastic, the temperature varies for different materials.
Different temperature ranges are shown for stress-strain curves in Figure 16. Curve 1 and
2 are in liquid phase, therefore nothing is happening for stress and strain. Curve 3
represents the coherent temperature, where the metal ruptures at low stresses. Plastic
behavior at low stresses is indicated by Curve 4. Finally, curve 5 shows the elastic
deformation at high stresses [51].
60
3.5 STRAIN THEORIES
Pellini (1952) strain theory is based on the liquid films concept that exists at grain
boundaries at, above, or in the region of solidus temperature. The strain theory provides a
mechanism of hot tearing in terms of the time-rate of extension developed in the liquid film
regions. It defines that total strain developed during film life period depends on strain rate
and time of film life in the casting. Figure 34 described all possible forms of hot tearing
including the critical amount of strain in the casting. The rate of extension may vary and
depends on length of contraction, cooling rate, and width of hot spot extension. The effect
of segregates is critical due to increased film life [41].
Figure 35 shows the various stages of casting in a solidification system that contains a hot
spot. In case A, the hot zone is uniform in mushy stage where strain is weak and could
cause separation. In case B, the hot zone is liquid film stage extension and highly
concentrated in film regions. This results high strains which could cause separation. In
case C, the hot zone in solid stage extension causes uniform creep of ductile solid metal
[37,44].
61
Figure 34. Strain development from film stage to non-equilibrium solidification [41]
62
Figure 35. Strain development leading to tear formations [41]
63
Pellini’s theory can be quantified by assuming if the length of casting is L and it has
coefficient of  thermal expansion, during the cooling process T is temperature
difference of liquid metal, and the casting will contract TL . If the contraction is at hot
spot of length l , then the strain is as follows [37,41]
𝜀𝑇 = 𝛼 ∗ Δ𝑇 ∗ 𝐿/𝑙 (3.2)
Where,  =strain,  = thermal expansion, T = temperature difference of liquid metal

during cooling, L / l = Change in length ratio due strain contraction in casting.
Fine grains may contain many grain boundaries at a hot spot. Considering that numbers of
grains are in length l and the diameter of grain is a. The number of grains at hot spot is l/a.
Strain per boundary is [37]:
𝜀𝑏 = 𝛼 ∗ Δ𝑇 ∗ 𝐿 ∗ 𝑎/𝑙 2 (3.3)
Thermal Stress: 𝜎 = 𝜀𝑇 . 𝐸 (3.4)
Where E is the elastic modulus.
64
3.6 HOT TEARING CRITERIA
Feurer (1976) proposed criterion to predict hot tear formation in castings. He investigated
the feeding characteristics and hot tearing properties and found that the poor feeding is
caused by solidification shrinkage because of the interlinking of dendrites. However, the
dendrites act as porous filters. The residual liquid is fed through these porous dendrite
filters. Insufficient feeding to the casting may result in the volumetric shrinkage. If the
shrinkage velocity exceeds the maximum flow rate of feeding, hot tearing may occur.
However, Feurer postulates that hot tear formation (HTF) is possible if [45]:
SPV  SRG (3.5)
The maximum volumetric flow rate per volume is defined by:
1  V    ln V 
SPV     (3.6)
V  t   t 
Where,
SPV = the maximum volumetric flow rate through dendrite networks
V = Volume, t = time
65
The volumetric solidification shrinkage is caused by the density difference between liquid
and solid. It is defined by:
  ln V  1 
SRG    . (3.7)
 t   t
Where, SRG = the volumetric shrinkage during solidification.
   L g L  s (1  g L ) (3.8)
Where,
V= volume of solidify elements,  L = density of the liquid,  S = density of solid phase
Clyne and Davies (1979 & 1981) defined a hot tearing criteria (HTC) as the ratio of the
interdendrite separation between grains during a time period (liquid fraction from 0.01 to
0.10) of vulnerability, to the time period for stress relaxation as liquid feeding occur
(liquid fraction from 0.1 to 0.06) as shown in Figure 36. The hot tearing susceptibility
(HCS) is defined by [46,47]:

𝑡 𝑡0.99 −𝑡0.90
𝐻. 𝐶. 𝑆. = 𝑡𝑉 = (3.9)
𝑅 𝑡0.90 −𝑡0.40
Where,
tv = the vulnerable time period when cracks can propagate
t r = the time period for stress-relaxation during liquid feeding
t0.99 = the time at which the solid fraction is 0.99

66
t0.9 = the time at which the solid fraction is 0.9
t0.4 = the time at which the solid fraction is 0.4.
Figure 36. Ratio of vulnerability ( 𝑡𝑣 ) to stress relaxation ( 𝑡𝑟 ) for hot tearing [46,47]
Katgerman (1982) combines the hot tearing criteria of Feurer (1976) and Clyne and Davies
(1979). His criterion is based on the concept that if feeding is inadequate the resultant
volume reduction causes stresses to develop. The vulnerable time proportionality changes
from t90  t99 to t99  tcr . Hot tearing formation (HTF) index defined as [48]:
t99  tcr
HTF  (3.10)
tcr  t 40
Where, tcr =distance from where after feeding is inadequate
67
The hot tearing formation index improved using coherency temperature, which defines
where dendrite networks begin to form. Considering the coherency temperature ( tCoh ),
then hot tearing formation is defined by
t99  tcr
HTF  (3.11)
tcr  tCoh
Hatami et al. proposed a new criteria based on theories of Feurer (1976), Clyne and Davies
(1979), and Katgerman (1982). The new theory considers a volume element in the mushy
zone, called volume solid fraction of f s for hot cracking simulation. If there is no flow
considered, then the zero flow point in mushy zone is known as solid fraction for rigidity.
New criteria postulates that if a neighboring element has a solid of fraction less than the
rigidity point, local liquid feeding is possible and no cracks will occur. If neighboring
elements exceed the solid fraction of rigidity, then liquid feeding is not possible and hot
cracks may occur. Such hot tearing formation (HTF) is determined on each element [49]:
T0.99  Tcr
HTF  (3.12)
t 0.99  t cr
Where,
t0.99  tcr = critical time at which element transmits stresses
68
Campbell suggested a significantly different hot tearing predictive model, suitable for
qualitative assessment of different alloys as defined below [37,45].
𝛼∆𝑇𝐿𝑎 𝑡
𝐶𝑆𝐶 = ∗ 𝑡𝑉 (3.13)
𝑙2 𝑅
Where, 𝛼= Coefficient of thermal expansion, ∆𝑇= undercooling temperature, 𝐿= Casting
𝛼∆𝑇𝐿𝑎
length, 𝑎= grain size, 𝑙= Length of hot spot, =Accumulated thermal strain at hot spot
𝑙2
𝑡𝑉
= Ratio of vulnerability (𝑡𝑉 ) to stress relief (𝑡𝑅 )
𝑡𝑅
The Niyama criterion was developed by E. Niyama in 1982 to predict shrinkage porosity.
The Niyama is defined as [73]

𝐺
𝑁𝑦 = (3.14)
√𝑇̇
Where 𝐺 is the thermal gradient and 𝑇̇ is the cooling rate. Niyama criterion is based on
strain rate.
In the RDG hot tearing criterion [75], the depression pressure, ∆𝑝, over the mushy zone:
∆𝑝 = ∆𝑝𝑠ℎ + ∆𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑐 − 𝜌𝑔ℎ (3.15)
69
Where, ∆𝑝𝑠ℎ and ∆𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑐 are the pressure drop contributions in the mushy zone
associated with the solidification shrinkage and the deformation caused by fluid flow,
respectively, ρ is density, g is gravitational constant, and h is the distance below the
liquid melt level.
1
The Hot Cracking Susceptibility (HCS) = (3.16)
𝜀̇ 𝑚𝑎𝑥
70
3.7 HEAT TRANSFER IN CASTING SOLIDIFICATION
The rate of solidification of liquid metal is controlled by the excessive heat in the liquid
metal at the time of pouring and the rate of heat dissipation from the casting [37].
3.7.1 FLOW OF HEAT INTERFACES WITH CHILL
The heat flow from liquid metal interfaces with chill and it can be approximated as one
dimensional heat transfer problem. Therefore, during the unsteady state (transient)
conduction heat transfer in one dimensional, the flow of heat from liquid metal poured at
melting temperature T p against the mold wall at temperature Tm , then the partial differential
can be written as follows [37]
 2T ( x, t ) 1 T ( x, t )
 (3.17)
x 2  t
The boundary conditions are as follows:
At x  0, T  Tc And at x  L, T  Tm
k
 (3.18)
c
Where,  is the thermal diffusivity of solid material, x is the Cartesian coordinates, k is
the thermal conductivity, and c is the specific heat capacity.
71
3.7.2 FLOW OF HEAT INTO CASTING
When heat is flowing into the casting, the latent heat of solidification is added to equation
(14), then new equation is described by [37]:
 2T ( x, t ) T ( x, t )
k  H  c (3.19)
x 2
t
Where, H is the latent heat of solidification
3.7.3 HEAT RELEASED DURING SOLIDIFICATION
The rate of heat is released from mold during solidification is [37]:
T ( x, t )
Q   HA (3.20)
t
The flow of heat is transferred to the mold. Considering the heat transfer coefficient is h
and the unit per area of the mold is A , then the rate of heat transferred Q can be defined
by
Q  hA(Tc  Tm ) (3.21)
Where the mold has constant thickness and also the temperature difference (Tc  Tm ) is
contact across the mold.
72
CHAPTER 4 - EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF DIE CASTING ALLOYS
This section summarizes the development of a gravity die casting book mold assembly for
hot tearing evaluation methods to conduct experimental studies in predicting hot tearing
characteristics of A206.2, A380, Test-A-alloy, and AT72 alloys. The book mold is
designed to be used as a tool for casting industries so that new alloys can be tested for hot
tearing before production release. Both aluminum and magnesium die casting alloys are
selected to examine hot tearing defects in casting.
The experimental studies were conducted on several samples of casting at various
temperatures so the casting could be analyzed for defects. Pouring and mold temperatures
influence hot tearing propensity of die casting alloys.
The contraction forces and cooling temperatures are measured in real time using a load cell
(maximum rating: 500lb) and K-Type thermo-couples, respectively. The cast parts are
analyzed for hot cracking and casting defects.
73
4.1 DESIGNING OF A BOOK MOLD ASSEMBLY
The book mold assembly is designed as a gravity die casting mold based on concepts from
constrained rod casting. Argo et al. and Cao et al. used constrained rod casting to
investigate hot tearing phenomena in die casting alloys. The new book mold assembly is
called Enhanced Constrained Rod Casting (ECRC). The ECRC contains five rods. The
longest constrained rod is used for the measurement of thermal contraction forces during
solidification. The remaining four constrained rods (A,B,C,D) with diameter of 9.5 mm
and lengths of 51, 89, 127, and 165 mm are used for hot tearing evaluation. Each
constrained rod has a bulbous ball end (restrain ball) with diameter of 19 mm as shown in
Figure 37. The new book mold assembly for ECRC has a tapered sprue to facilitate liquid
metal feeding through curved bend to constrained rods [2,14]. A schematic illustration of
enhanced constrained rod casting is presented in Figure 37.
74
Figure 37. A schematic illustration of enhanced constrained rod casting
4.1.1 DESIGNING OF A SPRUE AND RUNNER FOR METAL FLOW
The function of a sprue system is to facilitate the liquid metal into mold cavity without
generating turbulence. A tapered sprue is a very important feature in a good gating system.
It is developed following the Law of Continuity (conversation of mass) for fluid flow.
This principle is derived from the fact that mass is always conserved in fluid systems
regardless of the duct/pipeline complexity or direction of fluid flow. If fluid flow exits in
a channel and the principles of mass flow are applied to the system, there exists a continuity
of flow. This is defined as: “The mean velocities at all across sections having equal areas
are equal, and if areas are not equal the velocities are inversely proportional to respective
cross sections” [53].

75
Consider a section of tapered sprue (circular) as specified in a control volume (CV) where
the inlet area 𝐴1 is larger than the outlet area 𝐴2 , thus per continuity of flow, the inlet
velocity 𝑉1 will be inversely proportional to outlet velocity 𝑉2 as shown in Figure 38.
Figure 38. Fluid flow in a tapered sprue (circular)
Flow rate(Q) = Area(A) ∗ velocity(V) (1)
Volume flowing in (𝑄1) = Volume flowing out(𝑄2)
𝐴1 𝑉1 = 𝐴2 𝑉2 (2)
From the continuity equation (2), the velocity of liquid metal flow increases at outlet. A
sharp bend between the sprue and the runner may develop eddies and lower pressure in
localized regions, resulting in the reduction of fluid flow velocity.
76
The new design of tapered sprure and curved pipe would increase the fluid velocity. The
inner and outer bend radius between tapered sprue and runner are designed by changing
the bend geometries half of runner thickness (0.5 * t) and one and half times of runner
thickness (1.5 * t) respectively. These changes will reduce stress concentration and form
streamlined flow as shown in Figure 39 (a) and (b) respectively [54].
t
R= (3)
2
R´ = 1.5 ∗ t (4)
Where,
𝑅 = inner radius of runner, R´ = outer radius of runner, and t = thickness of runner
Figure 39. a) Bend radius for inner b) Bend radius for outer radius between sprue and
runner [54]
77
The new feeding concepts are designed to feed mold cavities of enhanced constrained rods
from the bottom through a tapered sprue and curved runner, which permits liquid metal to
flow as streamlined with minimum hindrance. Additionally, it eliminates eddies,
aspiration, and turbulent flow in the molten casting alloy as shown in Figure 40 and Figure
41 [55, 56].
Figure 40. Eddies and aspiration [56]
Figure 41. Formation of streamlined fluid flow [56]
78
4.1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED CONTRAINED ROD CASTING
The book mold assembly of Enhanced Constrained Rod Casting was developed using P20
tool steel. Haas VF3SS and Kitamura H400 CNC machines were used for machining of
mold cavities. The surface finish of left and right mold cavities were measured in the
ranges of 10-60 micro inches. The following tools were used to perform milling, grinding,
and surface finishing operations of book mold cavities as shown in Table 8 [57].
79
Table 8. Types of Tools Applied in Development of Book Mold Assembly [57].
A 3D model was developed using SolidWorks software for both left and right side of the
book mold assembly. From a 3D solid model, 2D engineering drawings were created as
all the detailed dimensions are shown in Figure 42 and Figure 43.
80
Figure 42. A 2D engineering drawing of left side mold assembly
81
Figure 43. A 2D engineering drawing of right side mold assembly
82
The book mold assembly consists of the left and right side of the mold which are connected
with two separable hinges on the sprue side. The other end is free to open and close during
casting operations. The book mold assembly contains four constrained rods (A, B, C, D).
Each constrained rod has a bulbous or restrain ball at the end. An additional rod is added
without bulbous end for thermal contraction force measurements. The views of the left
and right molds are shown in Figure 44, Figure 45, Figure 46, and Figure 47 respectively.
The dimensions for book mold assembly of enhanced constrained rod casting are given
below [14].
 Dimension: Length: 12 inch, Width: 9 inch, Thickness: 1.25 inch (half mold)
 The length of constrained rods: A: 6 inch (152.4 mm), B: 4.5 inch (114.3), C: 3
inch (76.2 mm), and D: 2 inch (50.8 mm).
 The diameter of rod: 0.38 inch (9.65 mm)
 The diameter of restrain ball: 0.76 inch (19.30 mm)
 The length of measurement rod for load cell: 7.5 inch (190.5 mm)
83
Figure 44. The details of installation for left mold cavity
Figure 45. A 3D view of left mold cavity
84
Figure 46. The details of installation for right mold cavity
Figure 47. A 3D view of right mold cavity
85
4.2 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF A206.2, TEST-A, A380, AND AT72 ALLOYS
Experimental studies are conducted for hot tearing evaluation of A206.2, Test-A, A380,
and AT72 alloys. A schematic illustration of the experimental set up is shown in Figure
48. The apparatuses for experimental studies include a book mold assembly of enhanced
constrained rod casting (ECRC), data acquisition system, donut load cell, load cell washers,
VAC Input/15 VDC Output Power Supply for load cell, quartz rod with grooves, shaft
collar, flat washers, ceramic washers, K-type thermocouples with ceramic beads, TC
Thermocouple Data Logger, and support bracket as listed in Table 9. The photographs for
apparatuses and test equipment are as presented in Figures 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54,
respectively.
86
Figure 48. A schematic illustration of experimental set up for ECRC mold
87
Table 9. List of Apparatuses for Experimental Studies
Number Description of Apparatuses Quantity References
A book Mold Assembly for Enhanced

1 1 N/A
Constrained Rod casting using P20 tool Steel
LTH300 , 0-500 lb, Donut Load Cell , Standard ,

2 1 59
1/4" [6.35 mm] ID - OT: -60° F to 200° F
LTH300 (L2760), 1/4" ID, Top Washer, A2

3 1 59
Tool Steel Material
LTH300 (L2760), 0.40" ID, Bottom Washer, A2

4 1 59
Tool Steel
IAC180 , Power Supply Kit for CSG110 , VAC

5 1 59
Input/15 VDC Output Power Supply
CSG110 , Strain Gauge Amplifier , Standard ,

Enclosed With Din Rail Mount , With DB9
6 1 59
Connectors , ABS-94HB Black Enclosure ,
Analog Output , +/-5 VDC , +/-10 VDC
1 for each
7 K-Type thermocouples 63
test
one pack
8 Ceramic Beads, Dole holes (DH-1-24-100) 63
(QTY-45)
9 Clear Fused Quartz Rod, 6mm diameter 4 feet 60
10 USB data-acquisition-1208FS [Tracer DAQ] 1 61
11 EL-USB-TC Thermocouple Data Logger 1 62
12 Ceramic washers 2 N/A

13 Steel Washers 2 N/A
14 Support Bracket 1 N/A
15 Shaft Collar 1 N/A
16 Hex head Bolts (3/8"X6") long 2 N/A
17 Double pole Single Through Control Switch 1 N/A
18 Heat Sink tube 1/2 feet N/A
19 Alignment Pin for Book Mold Assembly 1 N/A
88
Figure 49. Book mold assembly of enhanced constrained rod casting
Figure 50. Closed book mold assembly of enhanced constrained rod casting with K-type
thermocouple
89
Figure 51. Data acquisition system (Tracer DAQ) with donut load cell [59,61]
Figure 52. Quartz rod for force measurement with shaft collar [60]
90
Figure 53. USB-TC thermocouple data logger with K-type thermocouple [62,63]
Figure 54. Load cell compression, flat, and ceramic washers [59,64]
91
4.3 INSTRUMENTATION OF EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUSES
Figure 4.19 shows instrumentation and installation of experimental apparatuses for
Enhanced Constrained Rod Casting (ECRC) mold. A quartz rod with grooves is installed
in ECRC mold of the longest measurement rod to measure contraction forces during casting
solidification. The quartz rod assembles with a donut load cell, compression washers,
ceramic washers, and steel washers are shown in Figure 55. The quartz rod is supported
by a support bracket, which is attached to the exterior of the ECRC mold as shown in Figure
57. The operating temperature of load cell is -60° F to 200° F. Therefore, to protect the
load cell from high temperatures, the ceramic and steel washers are used to form a heat
sink, so heat would be dissipated properly to keep the load cell under operating
temperature, as shown in Figure 56. The donut load cell is connected to the USB data-
acquisition-1208FS [Tracer DAQ] and an output cable is routed from the USB data-
acquisition-1208FS and connected to the PC for data collection. Two compression load
washers (Hardened washer - A2 Tool Steel) are used in front and back of the load cell
mounted over the quartz rod. When compression loads are applied on the load cell due to
contraction/shrinkage of casting during cooling, the load cell transmits the contraction
forces to an amplifier. The output thermal contraction forces are amplified and then
displayed on the data acquisition system in volts. A C-clamp is used to tighten and hold
the book mold assembly closed during casting.
92
To measure the temperatures of casing during solidification, the EL-USB-TC
Thermocouple Data Logger is used. It is connected with a K-thermocouple and installed
through a hole at the left side of the book mold, adjacent to the longest measurement rod
for measurements in real time. The data cables of the load cell and K-type thermocouples
were connected to a control switch (double pole single throw) so these two apparatuses can
be turned On/Off simultaneously. Contraction forces and temperatures data were measured
and recorded on the PC. This data was then converted into an Excel or spreadsheet format
(from *.csv and *.sch) for post-processing and evaluation of casting defects.
The conversion for thermal contraction forces are: one volt per fifty pounds (1Volt = 50
lb), which was then converted from pounds to Newton (N) units.
Figure 55. Instrumentation and installation of testing equipment for ECRC mold
93
Figure 56. Installation of load cell along with quartz rod and washers
Figure 57. Support bracket for quartz rod and load cell assembly
94
4.4 EXPERIMENTAL MATRIX AND CHARATERTICS OF A206.2, TEST-A,
A380, AT72 ALLOYS
For experimental studies, A206.2, Test-A (Aluminum alloy), A380, and AT72
(Magnesium alloy) alloys were selected for hot tearing evaluation. Aluminum alloy
A206.2 possesses several characteristics that are suited for automotive, aerospace, and
military applications. A206.2 is a heat treatable die casting alloy, employed to have high
tensile, yield strength, and high fracture toughness. A206.2 is subjected to corrosion
problems due to high wt% of copper content. In spite of its excellent properties, A206.2
alloy is not often used, primarily because of its propensity for hot tearing.
A 35 kilogram ingot of A206.2 alloys was sourced from Trialco Inc. for experimental
studies. The actual data for chemical compositions were provided by Trialco Inc. for
A206.2, and is presented in Table 10 [65].
Table 10. Chemical Compositions of A206.2 Alloy
Si Cu Mn Mg Fe Ti Zn Al
A206.2
Alloy
(wt%) Standard 0.05 4.2-5.0 0.20-0.50 0.20-0.35 0.07 0.15-0.25 0.05 94.83-93.48
Actual 0.02 4.66 0.39 0.38 0.04 0.18 0.01 94.24
95
Test-A alloy is a new alloy, which was developed by an automotive component supplier to
have excellent corrosion resistance properties. In this study, Test-A alloy contains a high
percentage of Silicon (9.4 wt% of Si), which is one of the most important alloying elements
used in die casting alloys. Higher percentages of Silicon content are responsible for
decreases in thermal expansion coefficient of the casting. The Si content increases the
fluidity, allows for better mold filling, reduces shrinkage, and does not diminish corrosion
resistance of aluminum. The actual data for Test-A alloy chemical composition is
presented in Table 11. This data was used for experimental studies.
Table 11. Chemical Compositions of Test-A Alloy
A380 die casting alloy is widely used in the manufacture of aerospace and automotive
components which includes engine parts, gear boxes, electronic enclosures, support
brackets, and power equipment. A380 has excellent fluidity due to high Si content, and
resistance to hot tearing. Due to its high thermal conductivity, it dissipates heat quickly
during the solidification process. Table 12 contains the chemical composition of A380 that
were used for experimental studies.
96
Table 12. Chemical Compositions of A380 Alloy
Table 13 contains the Chemical Compositions of AT72 (Mg-7Al-2Sn) that were used for
experimental studies. AT72 is a new magnesium alloy, which has been developed for thin
wall and light weight casting parts. The addition of 2% Sn content enables the alloy to be
heat treatable. AT72 alloy is close to AZ91D alloy except 0.5% of Zn content.
Table 13. Chemical Compositions of AT72 (Mg-7Al-2Sn)
97
4.5 MELTING AND CASTING PROCESSES OF A206.2, TEST-A, A380, AND
AT72 ALLOYS
The melting of aluminum A206.2, Test-A, and A380 alloys were conducted in a silicon
carbide (SiC) crucible using an induction furnace. The alloys were heated above 50-100°C
liquidus for each pouring temperature. It took 35 – 45 minutes to complete the melting
process. The mold cavities of Enhanced Constrained Rod Casting (ECRC) were properly
cleaned and two coats of Boron Nitride (BN) were applied 24 hours prior to pouring. The
ECRC mold was heated up to 150 °C for an hour in an electric oven and then removed for
cooling. Then the instrumentation was assembled to mold for experimental studies. The
initial temperature of ECRC mold was kept at room temperature (25.5°C) before pouring
of A206.2, A380, and Test-A alloys for experimental studies. Three castings were carried
out for each alloy at pouring temperatures of 700°C, 750°C, and 800°C. The selection of
these samples and pouring temperatures were based on previous studies and the evaluation
of die casting alloys at elevated temperatures. Three pouring temperatures were not chosen
using liquidus plus super heat temperatures because it may vary for alloys. But three
pouring temperatures of 700°C, 750°C, and 800°C used for consistency.
98
In the first test, the liquid metal of A260.2 alloy was poured at pouring temperature of
700°C into the tapered sprue through the runner, which feeds the measurement and
constrained rods. It took approximately 3 seconds to fill the entire the mold cavities of
Enhanced Constrained Rod Casting. After each cast, a time interval of 40-45 minutes were
used for cooling the book mold assembly. These casting processes were repeated for the
A206.2 alloy at pouring temperatures of 760°C and 800°C, respectively.
Similar casting processes were followed on the A380 and Test-A die casting alloys and the
liquid metal was poured at pouring temperatures of 700°C, 750°C, and 800°C.
The melting of die casting AT72 (magnesium) alloy was conducted in a low carbon steel
pouring cup, in an Electric Resistance Furnace. The melt was protected with a tube
inserted into the furnace with sulfur hexafluoride and carbon dioxide gas layer. During the
pouring of AT72 alloy, the layer of sulfur hexafluoride and carbon dioxide gas were used
to prevent exposures of the Mg to oxygen, which can cause fires. The ECRC book mold
assembly was heated up to 156 °C, 147 °C, and 165 °C for pouring temperatures of 675 °C,
710 °C, and 750 °C, respectively. Before pouring, the ECRC mold was set up for
measuring the contraction forces and temperatures. These processes were repeated for each
pouring of 710 °C and 750 °C. After each run, a time interval of 50 minutes was used for
cooling and removing the cast from the mold. It took an hour to heat up the mold in the
furnace for the next run. After three experimental runs of AT72, the castings were
99
evaluated for hot tearing defects, and measured data were analyzed. All the test data can
be found in appendices for A206.2, A380, Test-A, and At72 alloys.
4.5.1 FORCE MEASUREMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS OF A206.2 ALLOY
The data collection devices were turned on before pouring and contraction forces and
temperatures were measured and displayed on a PC in real-time using the data acquisition
system. The measured data was recorded for post processing to evaluate hot tearing
formation and solidification stages. The switch for data acquisition was turned off after 6-
8 minutes of each test. Finally, castings were removed from the book mold assembly after
10-12 minutes for observation and analysis. Recorded data was analyzed and graphs were
plotted for each casting. Figure 58 shows the casting of ECRC as it solidified inside the
mold.
Figure 58. Casting of ECRC as solidified inside mold after pouring of Test-A-alloy at
700°C
100
Testing of the Test-A-alloy was performed at pouring temperatures of 700°C, 750°C, and
800 °C. The collected data from experimental studies were used for post processing and
understanding of the formation of hot tears. As the casting solidified after pouring each
alloy, the cooling curve and contraction forces were measured as a function of time.
4.5.1.1 HOT TEARING EVALUATION OF A206.2 AT 700°C
The first sample of A206.2 alloy was poured at pouring temperature of 700°C. The
contraction forces and temperatures were recorded as a function of time as shown in Figure
59. The maximum casting temperature was recorded at 643°C.
At the initial stage of solidification, the thermal contraction force rose for a short period
due to solidification shrinkage. The contraction force was measured to be 20.9 N,
corresponding to a temperature of 559 °C. At this point the load dropped because the long
rod developed hot tear and fractured. After 5 seconds, the contraction force rose for 21
seconds due to linear contraction of short fractured end of the long rod. The force was
measured to be 107.4 N, corresponding to a temperature of 499 °C. After 40 seconds, the
contraction force curve reached a steady state, where the temperature mold and casting
achieved the equilibrium as shown in Figure 60.
101
The cast part was removed from the mold and inspected for hot tearing failures. A
photograph of ECRC showed cracks due to hot tearing at restrain ball of constrained rod
A, which is partially connected as shown in Figure 60. Restrain ball is fully separated from
constrained rod B, whereas constrained rod C is separated from feeder. There are no cracks
observed due to hot tearing at constrained rod D. A summary of observation analysis and
results for hot tearing cracks are presented in Table 14.
Figure 59. Contraction force and cooling curve of A206.2 at 700°C
102
. Figure 60. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing for A206.2 C at 700°C
Table 14. Summary of Hot Tearing Results
Feeder to
Constrained Rod Constrained Rod Constrained Constrained Measurement Rod
constrained
A B Rod C Rod D for Load cell
rods
Hot tears at Hot tears at Hot tears away
Hot tears at Big cracks at
restrain ball and constrained No hot tears from middle toward
restrain ball feeder
fully seperated Rod C load cell
103
The second sample of A206.2 alloy was poured at 760°C. The graphs of contraction force
and temperature as a function of time are shown in Figure 61. The maximum casting
temperature was recorded to be 734.5°C.
At the initial stage of solidification, the casting started solidifying where the contraction
force rose to point where a noticeable change occurred due to the development of hot
tearing in the longest rod. At this stage, the contraction force was measure to be 78.6N,
which corresponds to a temperature of 651 °C. The contraction force rose smoothly for 15
seconds due to friction between broken rod and mold. The contraction force reached to a
maximum point and it was measured to be 86 N, which corresponds to a temperature of
540.5°C. The contraction force curve declined and reached to a thermal equilibrium where
mold and casting have the same temperature as shown in Figure 62.
The photograph of the ECRC process showed cracks due to hot tearing at the restrain ball,
which was separated from the constrained rod A as shown in Figure 62. Constrained rod
B and C were fully separated from the feeder. There were no cracks observed due to hot
tearing at constrained rod D. A summary of the observation analysis and results for hot
tearing cracks are presented in Table 15.
104
105
Figure 62. A Photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing for A206.2 C at 760°C
Table 15. Summary of Hot Tearing Results
Feeder to
constrained
rods
Hot tears at the Hot tears at Hot tears at the
Hot tears at
junction of the junction of junction of feeder Big cracks at
restrain ball and No hot tears
feeder and feeder and and Meassurement feeder
fully seperated
Constrained Rod Constrained Rod
106
The third sample of A206.2 alloy was poured at 800°C. The graph of the Contraction Force
and Temperature vs time is shown in Figure 63. The maximum casting temperature was
recorded to be 750 °C.
At the initial stage of liquidus temperature, the contract force rose smoothly and measured
to be 79.84 N, corresponding to a temperature of 627 °C. The contract force dropped
quickly due to the development of a hot tearing in the long rod. After 5 second, cleavage
was complete. The contraction force rose smoothly for 15 seconds due to solid state
contraction of rod. The contraction forces reached to a maximum of 76.6 N, which
corresponding to a temperature of 505°C. At this stage, the contraction force curve declined
to a point where the casting reached a thermal equilibrium state with the mold.
A photograph of ECRC showed cracks due to hot tearing at restrain ball, which was
separated from constrained rod A as shown in Figure 64. Hot tearing at restrain ball of
constrained rod B occurred but it remained connected. There were no cracks observed due
to hot tearing at constrained rod C and D. A summary of observation analysis and results
for hot tearing cracks are presented in Table 16.
107
108
Figure 64. A photograph of the ECRC showed hot tearing cracks at 800°C
Table 16. Summary of Hot Tearing Results at 800°C
Feeder to
constrained
rods
Hot tears at the
Hot tears at
Hot tears at junction of feeder Big cracks at
restrain ball and No hot tears No hot tears
restrain ball and Meassurement feeder
fully seperated
Rod
109
4.5.1.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 In the solidification process as heat is removed from Enhanced Constrained Rod
Casting through conduction, thinner section of the casting which include
constrained rods (A,B,C,D) solidified faster than feeder and sprue. Because, rods
are smaller in diameter than the feeder, the rods probably solidified slightly before
the feeder.
 The first sample of A206.2 casting alloy poured at 700 °C, exhibited significant hot
tearing.
 As the casting temperature increased from 700°C to 760°C on second sample of
A206.2 casting, a greater amount of hot tearing in the casting was observed.
 The third sample of A206.2 was poured at 800°C, and the hot tearing in the casting
decreased slightly.
 Low volumetric shrinkage was observed due to heat maintained in the casting. Cu
addition increases shrinkage of alloy (4.7% Cu) due to poor interdendritic fluidity
and having a wide solidification interval where less amount of residual eutectic at
grain boundaries.
 A206.2 alloy exhibited higher hot tearing at 760°C and 800 °C than 700°C of
pouring temperatures. Thus it is obvious that the volumetric shrinkage is influenced
by both content of %Cu in alloy and pouring temperatures.
110
 The A206.2 alloy generated a basic shape in the time vs load plots. However, each
shape extended at each pouring temperature.
4.5.2 FORCE MEASUREMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS OF TEST-A
The studies of Test-A alloy are performed at three different pouring temperatures (700°C,
750°C, and 800°C) using the enhanced constrained rod casting (ECRC) mold. The data
collection apparatuses were turned on before pouring and contraction forces and
temperatures were collected and displayed on the PC in real-time. The measured data was
recorded for post processing to determine hot tearing formation and solidification curves.
The control switch for data acquisitions were turned off after 6-8 minutes of casting. After
each cast, a time interval of 40-45 minutes allowed for cooling the cast and book mold
assembly. The castings were removed from book mold assembly for evaluation. Recorded
data were analyzed and graphs were plotted for each casting to determine the formation of
hot tearing defects.
111
4.5.2.1 HOT TEARING EVALUATION OF TEST-A AT 700°C
The first sample of Test-A alloy was poured at 700°C. The contraction forces and
temperatures were as a function of time, as shown in Figure 65. The maximum casting
temperature was recorded to be 650 °C.
At the initial stage of liquidus, the contraction force curve lifted slightly however there was
no hot tearing occurred in the casting. The contraction force curve rose smoothly and
reached to a maximum of 164.64 N, which corresponded to a temperature of 552 °C. The
contraction force curve declined and reached a thermal equilibrium state with the mold.
A photograph of ECRC casting shows no cracks in constrained rod A, B, C, D, and
measurement rod for load cell as shown in Figure 66. Figure 67 shows casting solidified
inside mold at 700°C pouring of Test-A-alloy.
112
Figure 65. Contraction force and cooling curve of Test-A at 700°C
113
Figure 66. A photograph of cast part did not exhibit hot tearing for Test-A at 700°C
Figure 67. Casting of ECRC as solidified inside mold at 700°C of Test-A-alloy
114
The second sample of Test-A alloy was poured at 750°C. The contraction forces and
temperatures were as a function of time, as shown in Figure 68. After pouring, the
maximum casting temperature was recorded at 692°C.
At the initial solidification of casting, the contraction force rose sharply. There was no
crack occurred in the longest rod. Formation of small triangle is caused by high temperature
thermals strain. The contraction force was measured to be 14.99 N, which corresponds to
a temperature of 630.5 °C. At this point, the casting is fully solidified. Then the contraction
force rose vertically to a maximum of 123.89 N, corresponding to a temperature of 568.5°
C. At the maximum point, the contraction force curve declined slightly and reached a
thermal equilibrium with the mold as shown in Figure 68.
A photograph of ECRC casting shows cracks due to hot tearing at restrain ball, which was
separated from constrained rod A as shown in Figure 69. Hot tearing occurred at the
junction of the constrained rod D and the feeder. There were no cracks observed due to
hot tearing at constrained rod B and C. A summary of observation analysis and results for
hot tearing cracks are presented in Table 17. Figure 70 shows the solidified casting inside
the mold and hot tearing that occurred at Constrained Rod A and Rod D during
solidification.
115
Figure 68. Contraction force and cooling curve of Test-A alloy at 750°C
116
Figure 69. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing for Test-A at 750°C
Figure 70. Solidified casting inside mold showed hot tearing cracks at 750°C
117
Feeder to
constrained
rods
Hot tears at
Hot tears at
the junction
restrain ball and No hot tears No hot tears No hot tears No hot tears
of feeder
fully seperated
and Rod
The third sample of Test-A alloy was poured at 800°C. The contraction forces and
temperatures as a function of time were recorded as shown in Figure 71. After pouring, the
maximum casting temperature was recorded at 729 °C.
At the initial solidification of the casting, the contraction force rose and dropped quickly
forming a semi-circle due to high temperature thermal strain. No hot tearing exhibited in
the longest rod. The contraction force rose smoothly to a maximum of 157.4 N,
corresponding to a temperature of 563 °C. The contraction force curve declined slightly
and reached a thermal equilibrium.
118
A photograph of the ECRC part shows cracks due to hot tearing at the restrain ball, which
was separated from constrained rod A as shown in Figure 72. There were no cracks
observed due to hot tearing at constrained rod B, C, and D. A summary of observation
analysis and results for hot tearing cracks are presented in Table 18.
Figure 71. Contraction forces and cooling curve for Test-A at 800°C
119
Figure 72. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing for test-A at 800°C
Feeder to
constrained
rods
Hot tears at
restrain ball and No hot tears No hot tears No hot tears No hot tears No hot tears
fully seperated
120
 There was no hot tearing occurred at 700°C of pouring temperature.
 The longest did not show hot tearing at the pouring temperatures of 750°C and
800°C of pouring temperatures.
 Therefore, Test-A alloy is a good alloy and did not show hot tearing in the longest
rod at different pouring temperatures.
 Because, Si addition increases volumetric contraction in the formation of a silicon
phase, which expands and feed dendrites through surface tension during
solidification, hence reduces shrinkage porosity. Also, it contains high heat of
fusion which maintain the heat and fluidity.
4.5.3 FORCE MEASUREMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS OF A380 ALLOY
Similarly, casting experiments of A380 alloy were conducted. Testing of A380 alloy was
performed at three different pouring temperatures (700°C, 750°C, and 800°C) as liquid
metal was poured into the mold cavities of enhanced constrained rod casting (ECRC). The
recorded data were analyzed and graphs were plotted for each casting to characterize hot
tearing defects.
121
4.5.3.1 HOT TEARING EVALUATION OF A380 ALLOY AT 700°C
The first sample of A380 alloy was poured at 700 °C. The graph of contraction forces and
temperatures as a function of time (Cooling curve) is shown in Figure 73. After pouring,
the maximum cooling temperature was recorded at 657 °C.
At the initial solidification, the contraction force rose vertically and declined sharply due
to high temperature thermal strain in the casting. At this stage, the contraction force
measured to be 86.42 N, which corresponds to a temperature of 602.5 °C. Thermal
contraction force reached to a maximum of 125.7 N, corresponded to a cooling temperature
of 514.5 °C. No hot tearing occurred in the longest rod. The contraction force curve
declined constantly and reached a thermal equilibrium with the mold.
122
Figure 73. Contraction forces and temperatures as a function of time for A380 alloy at
700°C.
A photograph of first sample casting shows hot tearing cracks at Constrained Rod A and B
as shown in Figure 74. There were no cracks observed due to hot tearing at Constrained
Rod C and D.
123
Figure 74. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing cracks at 700°C
The second sample of A380 alloy was poured at 750 °C. The graph of contraction forces
and temperatures as a function of time (Cooling curve) is shown in Figure 75. After
pouring, the maximum cooling temperature of casting was recorded at 661.5 °C. At the
initial solidification of casting, the contraction force rose smoothly and reached to a
maximum of 132.3 N, which corresponds to a cooling temperature of 656 °C. The
contraction force curve declined constantly and reached a thermal equilibrium state.
Due to low pouring temperature this did not show similar graphs pattern as other test.
Additionally, the smallest rod D did not fill.
124
Figure 75. Contraction forces and cooling curve for A380 alloy at 750°C
A photograph of second sample casting is shown in Figure 76. There were no hot tearing
cracks observed of A380 alloy when poured at 750°C. However, the restrain ball cavity of
constrained rod D was not filled.
125
Figure 76. A photograph of cast part did not exhibit hot tearing at 750°C
The third sample of A380 alloy was poured at 800 °C. The graph of contraction forces and
temperatures as a function of time (Cooling curve) is shown in Figure 77. After pouring,
the maximum cooling temperature of casting was recorded at 703°C.
At the initial solidification of casting, the contraction force rose linearly and reached to a
point where hot tearing developed. At this point, the contraction force measured to be
108.13 N, which corresponds to a cooling temperature of 554 °C. The longest rod did not
show hot tearing. The contraction force dropped to a value of 98.38 N and rose again
126
linearly to a maximum of 164.62 N, which corresponds to a cooling temperature of 482
°C. This happened due to heat of fusion and solidification of the casting. The contraction
force curve declined constantly and reached a thermal equilibrium.
Figure 77. Contraction forces and cooling curve for A380 alloy at 800°C
A photograph of third sample casting is shown in Figure 78. The third sample of casting
which exhibited hot tearing at the junction of sprue and constrained rod B. All other
constrained rods did not show hot tearing defects.
127
 The first sample of A380 alloy did not exhibit hot tearing at 700°C of pouring
temperature in the longest rod.
 The second sample of A380 do not correlate with other testing data due to low
pouring temperature as it showed contraction force curve shifted to thermal
equilibrium state.
 The third sample of A380 at the pouring temperature of 800°Cdid not exhibit hot
tearing in the longest rod.
 Pouring temperature and alloy compositions (Cu addition of 3.5%) influence hot
tearing despite having 9.1%Si content.
128
4.5.4 FORCE MEASUREMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS OF AT72 ALLOY
The casting experiment was conducted on AT72 (magnesium alloy) alloy to determine hot
tearing. The casting was poured at three pouring temperatures (675°C, 710°C, and 750°C).
For each run, the liquid metal was heated above 50 – 100 °C of pouring temperature. The
mold was heated to three temperatures of 156 °C, 147°C, and 165 °C in an electric furnace
(Kiln – power rated 66000 watts).
Three sample of cast parts were examined for casting defects. Measured data were
analyzed and graphs were plotted for each casting to understand hot tearing defects.
4.5.4.1 HOT TEARING EVALUATION OF AT72 ALLOY AT 675 °C
The first sample of AT72 alloy was poured at 675 °C pouring temperature into ECRC mold.
At the time of pouring, the mold temperature was at 156 °C. The graph of contraction forces
and temperatures are shown as a function of time (Cooling curve) in Figure 79. After
pouring, the maximum cooling temperature of casting was recorded at 653 °C.
At the initial solidification of casting, the contraction force rose non-linearly and reached
to a point where a noticeable change occurred due to high thermal strain. At this point, the
contraction force was measured to be 53.4 N, which corresponds to a cooling temperature

129
of 545 °C. At this stage, it was measured to be 61.5 N, which corresponds to a cooling
temperature of 415 °C. The contraction force curve declined and reached a thermal
equilibrium state.
A photograph of first sample of casting is shown in Figure 80. The first sample of cast part
exhibited hot tearing at the retrain Ball of constrained rod A. All other constrained rods did
not exhibit hot tearing defects.
Figure 79. Contraction forces and cooling curve for AT72 alloy at 675 °C
130
The second sample of AT72 alloy was poured at 675°C pouring temperature in the ECRC
mold. At the time of pouring, the mold temperature was at 147°C. The graph of contraction
forces and temperatures is shown as a function of time (cooling curve) in Figure 81. After
pouring, the maximum cooling temperature of casting was recorded at 684 °C.
At the initial solidification of casting, the contraction force rose linearly and dropped due
to high thermal strain. At this point, the contraction force measured to be 43.8 N, which
corresponds to a cooling temperature of 677°C. The contraction force rose again non-
131
linearly to a maximum of 79.6 N, corresponding to a cooling temperature of 572°C. From
this stage, the contraction force curve declined and reached a thermal equilibrium state.
Figure 81. Contraction forces and cooling curve for AT72 alloy at 710 °C
A photograph of second sample of casting is shown in Figure 82. Hot tearing exhibited
between Constrained Rod A and feeder. There were no casting defects found on other
constrained rods.
132
Figure 82. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing at 710°C
The third sample of AT72 alloy was poured at 750 °C pouring temperature into ECRC
mold. At the time of pouring, the mold temperature was at 165 °C. The graph of contraction
forces and temperatures are shown as a function of time (cooling curve) in Figure 83. After
pouring, the maximum cooling temperature of casting was recorded at 712°C.
At the initial solidification of casting, the contraction force rose linearly and shifted due to
high thermal strain. At this transition point, the contraction force was measured to be 37.5
N, which corresponds to a cooling temperature of 677 °C. The contraction force continued
133
to an maximum of 61.82 N, which corresponds to a cooling temperature of 592 °C. From
this stage, the contraction force curve declined and reached a thermal equilibrium state.
A photograph of second sample of casting is shown in Figure 84. Hot tearing exhibited
between Constrained Rod A and feeder. There were no casting defects found on other
constrained rods.
Figure 83. Contraction forces and cooling curve for AT72 alloy at 750°C
134
Figure 84. A photograph of cast part exhibited hot tearing at 750°C
 The first sample of AT72 did not exhibit hot tearing at 675 °C of pouring
temperature.
 At pouring temperature 710°C, the second sample of AT72 did not show hot
tearing.
 At pouring temperature 750°C, the third sample of AT72 did not show hot tearing
in the longest rod.
135
 Pouring temperatures and mold temperatures influence hot tearing. By increasing
the mold temperature, hot tearing will be reduced due to small thermal gradient
which lower the strain contraction rate.
4.6 CONCLUSIONS
 In the solidification process as heat is removed from Enhanced Constrained Rod
Casting through conduction, thinner section of the casting which include constrained
rods (A,B,C,D) solidified faster than feeder and sprue. Because, rods are smaller in
diameter than the feeder, the rods probably solidified slightly before the feeder.
tearing.
 As the casting temperature increased from 700°C to 760°C on second sample of A206.2
casting, a greater amount of hot tearing in the casting was observed.
 The third sample of A206.2 was poured at 800°C, and the hot tearing in the casting
decreased slightly.
 Low volumetric shrinkage was observed due to heat maintained in the casting. Cu
addition increases shrinkage of alloy (4.7% Cu) due to poor interdendritic fluidity and
having a wide solidification interval where less amount of residual eutectic at grain
boundaries.
 A206.2 alloy exhibited higher hot tearing at 760°C and 800 °C than 700°C of pouring
temperatures. Thus it is obvious that the volumetric shrinkage is influenced by both
content of %Cu in alloy and pouring temperatures.
136
 Test A-alloy did not show hot tearing occurred at 700°C of pouring temperature.
 At the pouring temperatures of 750°C and 800°C, Test-A alloy did not show hot tearing
in the longest rod. Therefore, Test-A alloy is a good alloy.
phase, which expands and feed dendrites through surface tension during solidification,
hence reduces shrinkage porosity. Also, it contains high heat of fusion which maintain
the heat and fluidity.
 The first sample and third sample of A380 alloy did not exhibit hot tearing poured at
700°C and 800 °C. However, hot tearing occurred at the junction of constrained rod A
and rod B.
 The second sample of A380 alloy did not generate a basic shape in the time vs load
plots due to low pouring temperature.
 Pouring temperature and alloy compositions (Cu addition of 3.5%) influence hot
tearing despite having 9.1%Si content.
 The AT72 alloy did not show hot tearing in the longest rod at the pouring temperatures
of 675 °C, 710°C, and 750°C. Pouring temperatures and mold temperatures influence
hot tearing.
137
CHAPTER 5 – NUMERICAL AND HOT TEARING PREDICTIVE MODELING
5.1 NUMERICAL AND PREDICTIVE MOEDLING APPROACH
This section discusses numerical and hot tearing predictive models to study the casting and
simulation. The metal casting process is a complex process due to the cooling of liquid
metal in a rigid mold, thermal properties of liquid metal and mold, and uneven cooling of
liquid metal at elevated temperatures. The modeling and simulation of casting due to non-
linear behavior of materials is a challenge which require simplifications in modeling,
setting up boundary conditions, and simulation in order to correlate with experimental
studies. Due to the complexity of physical phenomena and limitations of finite element
software, it is necessary to make assumptions and simplifications in a particular area of
mold cavities for casting simulation.
In the numerical modeling approach, the finite element model of enhanced constrained rod
(ECRC) was developed to study the flow and shrinkage in the casting using MagmaSoft.
A comparative analysis was performed between constraint rod casting (CRC) and enhanced
constrained rod casting (ECRC).
138
The simplified version of 2-D ECRC model cavity was used to simulate temperature
distribution and thermal strain during phase changes using ANSYS. Sequential Coupled
Transient Method was used to study casting simulation of enhanced constrained rod casting
(ECRC) at 700°C, 750°C, and 800°C pouring temperatures for A206.2, Test-A, A380, and
AT72 alloys.
The hot tearing predictive models were used to predict shrinkage porosity and hot tearing
susceptibility based on thermal strain rates.
5.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODELING AND SIMULATION
MagmaSoft was used to model the current constrained rod casting (CRC) and enhanced
constrained rod casting (ECRC) to perform simulations as shown in Figure 85 and Figure
86 respectively. In modeling of CRC and ECRC, vent holes were incorporated so casting
would not have porosity.
139
Figure 85. Model of current constrained rod casting (CRC)
Figure 86. Model of enhanced constrained rod casting (ECRC)
140
The modeling of current constrained rod casting (CRC) and enhanced constrained rod
casting (ECRC) are to perform a comparative analysis to determine casting velocity and
solidification porosity. Tracers were added at the top of sprue to simulate and predict
casting velocity. The Casting filling velocity is critical in filling the mold cavities since
even millisecond improvements are advantageous due to rapid cooling and solidification
of casting. To produce good casting, casting industries optimize the filling velocities to
make sure liquid metal reaches to corners and cavities farthest in a short amount of time.
5.2.1 FLOW MODELING AND SIMULATION
The casting filling velocity of constrained rod casting (CRC) of 5.056 m/s in comparison
to enhanced constrained rod casting (ECRC) is 8.774 m/s as shown in Figure 87 and Figure
88. The new mold design of ECRC provides 42.4% higher filling velocity over current
CRC. The ECRC model has been optimized with tapered sprue, bend, and runner, which
develops streamline flow without forming turbulent with increased filling velocity.
141
Figure 87. Filling velocity of CRC at 700°C for A206.2
Figure 88. Filling velocity of ECRC at 700°C for A206.2
142
Figure 89 and Figure 90 show Hot Spot of A206 alloy at 700 °C and 800 °C of pouring
temperatures. Hot spots for enhanced constrained rod casting are at the transitional points
of feeder and constrained rods. At these junctions points, casting solidified last where hot
tearing develops. At the pouring temperature of 800 °C, Hot spot shifted to constrained A
and B whereas at the pouring temperature of 700 °C, the Hot Spot influenced on
Constrained Rods A,B,C, and D.
Figure 89. Hotspot of A206 alloy at 700°C pouring temperature
143
Figure 90. Hotspot of A206 alloy at 800°C pouring temperature
5.2.2 COOLING AND SOLIDIFCATION OF ECRC MOLD
Figure 91 and 92 show that constrained rods solidified at higher cooling rates than feeder
as observed from simulation at pouring temperatures of 700°C and 760°C.
Figure 92 shows that volumetric solidification shrinkage was observed at 7.68 % at the end
of solidification for Al-Cu alloy at 700°C. At 760°C, the shrinkage was observed to be 8.33
% at the end of solidification as shown in Figure 94. When the pouring temperature was
144
increased, the solidification increased by 7.8%. Thus, the pouring temperature influenced
the shrinkage. The theoretical value of Al-4.5%Cu showed a shrinkage value of 6.3%.
A206.2 alloy exhibited higher shrinkage due to addition of 4.7%Cu content. The shrinkage
of 7.68% is close to a theoretical value of 6.3%.
Figure 91. Cooling and solidification of A206.2 alloy at 700C
145
Figure 92. Solidification shrinkage of A206.2 alloy at 700 °C
Figure 93. Cooling and solidification of A206.2 alloy at 760°C
146
Figure 94. Solidification shrinkage of A206.2 at 760 °C
Al-10%Si showed shrinkage of 4.61% at casting temperature of 700°C as shown in Figure
95. When the pouring temperature was increased to 750 °C, the shrinkage was only
increased by 4.97% as shown in Figure 96. At the pouring temperate of 800°C, the
shrinkage was by 5% as shown in Figure 97. The theoretical value of shrinkage, 3.8%,
compare to the shrinkage obtained from simulation, 4.61%, is very close. The shrinkage
of 4.61% correlates with theoretical value of 3.61% because of the variation in the Si
content. Table 20 shows the theoretical values of Shrinkage for different alloys. A higher
% of Si content reduces the shrinkage porosity in Al-Si alloy.
147
Table 19. Shrinkage [42]
Figure 95. Solidification shrinkage Al-Si alloy at 700 °C
148
149
5.3 SEQUENTIAL COUPLED TRANSIENT THERMAL STRUCTURAL
METHODS
The sequential coupling method for Transient Thermal Analysis were used in simulating
the Enhanced Constrained Rod Casting (ECRC) as schematic illustrated in Figure 98
[70].
Figure 98. Transient thermal analysis using ANSYS sequential coupling method [70]
150
5.4 THERMO-MECHANICAL MODELING AND SIMULATION
For the Modeling of ECRC, the assumptions were made to simply the model. The longest
constrained rod was modeled for casting simulation since as it takes longer to solidify. The
dimensions and thickness of Enhanced Constrained Rod Casting were used in modeling
the 2D thermo-mechanical model in order to represent the actual model in a simulation of
the casting. The simulation model was divided into regions A1 and A2 as shown in Figure
99. The meshing of the model was done with Plane55 2-D thermal solid elements as
shown in Figure 100. The Plane55 has 4 nodes with a single degree of freedom and
temperature at each node. It works as a 2D thermal conduction element and has orthotropic
material properties [70].
Figure 99. Model of ECRC for thermal and structural analysis [70]
151
Figure 100. Plane55 2D thermal solid element [70]
The material properties were assigned to elements of both regions A1 and A2. The material
properties of steel (H13 Tool Steel) were assigned to elements of region A of the book
mold. Material properties for casting including aluminum A206, A380, and Test-A (K-
ally) were assigned to elements of region A2 of the mold cavity respectively. Magnesium
alloy AT72 was assigned to element of region A2 for casting simulation as shown in Figure
101.
Figure 101. Model with plane55 thermal solid element [70].
152
5.5 CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS AT SOLID STATE
Modeling of the mushy zone is a complex and two–phase liquid-solid phenomena. The
mechanical response in the casting depends on the microstructural evolution, which
integrates heat of fusion and solidification casting between liquidus and solidus
temperatures. To overcome these issues, the study of the mushy zone is simplified while
thermal and structural studies are conducted at solid state.
The Energy equation was solved in order to determine the temperature distributions of the
casting and mold during casting process. Assuming the pouring velocity of liquid metal is
equal to zero. The temperature, (𝑻) with respect to time (𝒕) in two dimensional for mold
and cavity, the energy balance equation is [66,70]
∂ ∂T ∂T ∂T
[K x ∂x ] + [K y ∂y] + Q = ρ ∗ Cp ∂t (1)
∂x
Where,
Q = Heat Source
K x , K y = Thermal Conductivity in x and y-directions
Cp = Specific heat
ρ = density
153
For thermal analysis, the compatibility equation relates to strains with incremental
displacements. The mechanical equations relate to incremental forces which resulted in
incremental stresses. The constitutive equations relate to incremental stress and strain.
These equations are given as follows [ 66,70]:
∆𝛆 = [𝐀]∆𝐮 (2)
Where,
𝛛
𝟎
𝛛𝐱
[𝐀] =
𝛛
𝟎
[ 𝛛𝐲]
∆𝛔 = [𝐃]𝛆𝐞 (3)
Where,
A, D = stifness matrix
𝜀𝑒 = 𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛
[𝐃] = [𝐊𝟏𝟏 𝐊𝟏𝟐]

𝐊𝟏𝟑 𝐊𝟏𝟒
The total strain is given by the following equation:
εT = εel + ϵin + εth (4)
Where,
𝛆𝐓 = Total strain
𝛆𝐞𝐥 = Elastic component
154
𝛆𝐩𝐥 = Plastic component
𝛆𝐭𝐡 = Thermal component
5.6 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF CASTING

ALLOYS
Figure 102 shows the boundary conditions that were applied to the thermal and structural
analysis simulations of A206, A380, Test-A-alloy, and AT72 alloys. For thermal analysis
simulation, a thermal convection coefficient of 25 W/m².K was applied at the outer surface
of the book mold for heat transfer between ambient temperature (300K) and steel for all
thermo-mechanical simulation. The mold temperatures was applied to nodes of region A1
for steel properties. The casting temperatures were applied to nodes of region A2 for A206,
A380, Test-A-alloy, and AT72 alloys as pouring temperatures.
For structural analysis, point A was fixed for (X,Y) direction of coordinates assuming
C-clamp was applied to hold both left and right book mold assembly in order to prevent
any displacements during cooling and contraction of casting. Point B was fixed only in X-
direction of the coordinate to resist linear contraction of casting as shown in Figure 102.
In the experimental analysis, the restrain ball provided this similar function by anchoring
the rod to resist the contraction force during casting solidification.
155
Figure 102. ECRC model with boundary conditions [70]
Table 21 and Table 22 show the physical properties of A206, A380, Test-A-alloy, and
AT72 alloys for thermal and structural analysis and simulation. Table 23 shows the
physical properties of P20 Tool Steel that was used for mold in analysis and simulation.
The casting and mold temperatures that were used in experimental studies and thermal-
structural analysis for A206, A380, Test-A-alloy, and AT72 alloys are presented in Table
24 and Table 25.
156
Table 20. Physical Properties of A206, A380, Test-A Alloy and AT72 [65, 66]
Table 21. Physical Properties of A380 [66]
Temperature (°C) 25 450 538 539 593 594
Density (Kg/m³) 2760 2760 2660 2660 2460 2460
Thermal Expansion
2.20E-05 2.20E-05 2.20E-05 4.00E-05 4.00E-05 2.20E-05
Coefficient
157
Table 22. Physical Properties of P20 Tool Steel [66]
Table 23. Pouring Temperatures for Alloys
Alloys for Casting Pouring Temperatures (°C)
A206 700 760 800
Test-A-alloy 700 750 800
A380 700 750 800
AT72 675 710 750
158
Table 24. Mold Temperatures for Alloys
Alloys Mold Temperatures (°C)
Pouring temperatures 700 750 800
A206, Test-A-alloy, A380 24.5 24.5 24.5
AT72 156 147 165
After setting the boundary conditions for thermal analysis, the transient parameters are
setup as follows:
Table 25. Simulation Time Steps
Transient Simulation
3600 Seconds
Steps
Time step 10 seconds
Maximum Time Step 900 seconds
Minimum Time Step 3.6 seconds
From the thermal casting simulation of the A206 alloy at pouring temperatures of 700°C,
760°C, and 800°C, it was observed that the constrained rod solidified faster than the feeder
because of thinner section of casting. For structural analysis simulation, the loads were
used from thermal analysis. The constraints were applied as described in Figure 102 to
secure the mold in studying thermal strain and material deformation. From simulation,
159
thermal strain and distributions at the junction point between the feeder and constrained
rod were observed at pouring temperatures of 700°C, 760°C, and 800°C as shown in Figure
103, Figure 104, and Figure 105. The total thermal and mechanical strain are summarized
in Table 27.
Table 26. Total Thermal and Mechanical Strain of A206 Alloy
Thermal and Thermal and

Die casting Thermal and Mechanical
Mechanical Strain Mechanical
Alloys Strain (800°C)
(700°C) Strain(760°C)
A206 0.004396 0.004463 0.004507
Figure 103. Thermal strain for A206 alloy at 700°C
160
Figure 104. Thermal strain for A206.2 alloy at 760°C
161
The thermal and structural simulations of Test-A (K-alloy) were performed at pouring
temperatures of 700°C, 750°C, and 800°C. The thermal strain and distribution at the
junction point between feeder and constrained rod were observed at pouring temperatures
700°C, 760°C, and 800°C as shown in Figure 106, Figure 107, and Figure 108. The total
thermal and mechanical strains are summarized in Table 28.
Table 27. Total Thermal and Mechanical Strain of Test-A Alloy
Thermal and Thermal and Thermal and

Die casting Alloys Mechanical Strain Mechanical Mechanical Strain
(700°C) Strain (750°C) (800°C)
Test-A-alloy 0.00377 0.003809 0.003845
Figure 106. Thermal strain for Test-A Alloy at 700°C
162
Figure 107. Thermal strain for Test-A alloy at 750°C
Figure 108. Thermal strain for Test-A alloy at 800°C
The thermal and structural simulations of A380 were performed at pouring temperatures
of 700°C, 750°C, and 800°C. The thermal strains at junction point between feeder and
constrained rod were observed at pouring temperatures 700°C, 760°C, and 800°C as shown
163
in Figure 109, Figure 110, and Figure 111. The total thermal and mechanical strains are
summarized in Table 29.
Table 28. Total thermal and mechanical strains of A380

(700°C) Strain (750°C) (800°C)
A380 0.00384 0.003881 0.003913
164
Figure 110. Thermal Strain for A380 alloy at 750°C
165
The thermal and structural simulations of AT72 alloy were performed at pouring
temperatures of 675°C, 720°C, and 750°C. The thermal strain at junction point between
the feeder and constrained rod were observed at pouring temperatures 700°C, 760°C, and
800°C as shown in Figure 112, Figure 113, and Figure 114. The total thermal and
mechanical strains are summarized in Table 30.
Table 29. Total Thermal and Mechanical Strain of AT72

(700°C) Strain (750°C) (800°C)
AT72 0.005559 0.005613 0.005723
Figure 112. Thermal strain for AT72 alloy at 675°C

166
167
From the simulation, the maximum total thermal and mechanical strain were observed at
the junction between the sprue and constrained rod. The summary of thermal strains for
A206, Test-A-alloy, A380, and AT72 alloys are presented in Table 31.
Table 30. The summary of total maximum thermal strain
Thermal Strain - Thermal Strain Thermal Strain -

Temperature Thermal Strain - A380
Test-A AT72
A206
675 0.005559
700 0.004396 0.00377 0.00384
710 0.005613
750 0.003809 0.003881 0.005723
760 0.004463
800 0.004507 0.003845 0.003913
168
5.7 HOT TEARING PREDICTIVE MODELING
 The Niyama criterion is the ratio of thermal gradient to the square root of cooling
rates. The Niyama is defined as [73]

𝐺
𝑁𝑦 =
√𝑇̇
Where 𝐺 is the thermal gradient and 𝑇̇ is the cooling rate.
Niyama criterion is based on strain rate. Figure 115 shows the shrinkage porosity of 5.0%
at 700 °C. The shrinkage Porosity of 6.0 % was observed at 760 °C as shown in Figure
116. Shrinkage porosity occurred at transition between thicker and thinner sections (at the
junction between rods and feeder) due to differential cooling. The simulation results
showed that the shrinkage porosity increased when pouring temperature was increased.
169
Figure 115. Shrinkage porosity of A206.2 alloy at 700°C
Figure 116. Shrinkage porosity of A206.2 alloy at 760°C
170
The Niyama criterion is a better predictive model because it relates to thermal gradient and
cooling rates for the casting. The cooling rates determine the how fast heat is removed from
the casting. On the microscopic level, large thermal gradient imposes strains and stresses
on the casting. On the macroscopic level, during contraction /expansion, the rigid steel
mold imposes constraint on the casting.
 In the RDG criterion, deformation is perpendicular to thermal gradient regardless
whether it corresponds to columnar or equiaxed dendrites. Hot tearing will not occur if
mushy zone can sustain some deformation and its strain rates remain low enough in order
to permit liquid feeding.

1
Hot cracking susceptibility (HCS): = 𝜀̇
𝑚𝑎𝑥
Where 𝜀̇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = strain rate
In the RDG modeling, the values of maximum thermal strains of A206.2, A380, Test-A,
and AT72 alloys are used as shown in Figure 117. Using the values from Table 31 for total
maximum thermal strain, the RDG criterion can be:
171
Figure 117. RDG criterion for die casting alloys
Total thermal strain is a function of pouring temperature and increases as pouring
temperature of the casting increased. AT72 alloy showed higher thermal strain at higher
pouring temperature, however, strain rate may be lower due to lower thermal conductivity
of AT72 (magnesium alloy).
RDG criterion is based on strain rate criterion and cannot be applicable in ECRC model.
However experimental data showed that when higher pouring temperatures were increased,
hot tearing susceptibility in the casting also increased. Figure 117 shows the higher thermal
strain for A206.2 than Test-A and A380 alloys, which correlated with experimental studies
172
except AT72. Aluminum alloys that include A206.2, A380, and test-A have higher thermal
conductivity in comparison to AT72 alloy.
 Clyne and Davies criterion cannot be applicable in enhanced constrained rod casting
(ECRC) model due to limitation in determining a vulnerability time and stress relief
time when hot tearing may develop as casting solidify during liquid metal feeding.
5.8 CONCLUSIONS
 Sprue design was optimized to improve the flow so no area of the casting freezes
early. Filling velocity was improved by 42.4% using numerical simulation.
 Numerical simulation showed that A206.2 alloy had the shrinkage of 7.68 %. When
pouring temperature increased 760°C, the shrinkage increased to 8.33%. Thus, the
pouring temperature influenced the volumetric shrinkage. The theoretical value of Al-
4.5%Cu showed a shrinkage value of 6.3%. A206.2 alloy exhibited higher shrinkage
due to addition of 4.7%Cu content. The shrinkage of 7.68% is close to a theoretical
value of 6.3%. Higher shrinkage is caused due to variation in Cu content.
 The shrinkage of 4.61% correlates with theoretical value of 3.8 % because of the
variation in Si content.
 Numerical simulation showed that total thermal strain is a function of pouring
temperature and increases as pouring temperature of the casting increased. The A206
exhibited higher thermal strain than A380 and Test-A alloys.
173
 In Niyama criterion, it observed that shrinkage porosity increased as pouring
temperatures were increased. Shrinkage porosity occurred at transition between thicker
and thinner section due to differential cooling.
 A380 alloy had higher strain rates compare to Test-A. This was due to Test-A alloy
having a high thermal conductivity and a lower density than A380 alloy, which is
influenced at elevated temperatures. Both density and thermal conductivity have
greater influences in material deformation.
174
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
RESEARCH
The section provides a summary of results, conclusions, and future work for development
of a book mold assembly and experimental studies performed on for A206.2, A380, Test-
A, and AT72 die casting alloys. Hot tearing characteristics of alloys and its propensity to
hot tearing are also discussed.
For future studies, some recommendations are made to improve and optimize the
experimental studies for die casting alloys.
6.1 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 The new book mold assembly of enhanced constrained rod casting (ECRC) has been
designed and developed with P20 tool steel, following engineering principles for
molten metal flow in die casting by using fluid and heat flow numerical simulations.
The tapered sprue was designed as a feeding mechanism to feed the liquid metal from
the bottom. This mechanism successfully improved the velocity of liquid metal as well
as reduced the fill time of constrained rod cavities. The ECRC has improved filling
velocity to constrained rods by 42.4% higher than the current constrained rods (CRC).
175
 The instrumented enhanced constrained rod casting (ECRC) has been established as a
tool in measuring contraction forces as a function of time for A206.2, Test-A, A380,
and AT72 die casting alloys. In real time, the contraction forces and temperatures were
recorded as function of time.
 Quantitative methods to measure the contraction forces and characterize the hot tearing
behavior of A206.2, Test-A, A380, and AT72 die casting alloys, have been developed.
Testing results from experimental studies showed consistency at different pouring
temperatures for these alloys.
 The castability of A206 alloy is very poor, meaning low fluidity due to content of 4.7
wt% Cu and having a wide solidification interval where less amount of residual eutectic
liquid that available to feed the dendrite network at the final stage of shrinkage.
 A380 and Test-A (K-alloy) alloys contain 9.1 wt% and 9.5 wt% of Si respectively.
A380 has 3.5 wt% of Cu and 0.7 wt% of Fe. In binary alloys, elements change the
solidification interval from 𝛼-phase to eutectic point. Addition of each element in alloy
continue to drop solidification interval. These two compositions may influence dendrite
formation for A380 alloy as well as solidification range. Similarly, Test-A (K-alloy)
contains 0.8 wt% of Fe and 0.2 wt% of Cu. Since Cu is in small amount it will have
little effect in casting defects. However, for Test-A, Iron (Fe), and Silicon (Si) may
influence the liquid presence at eutectic at the end of solidification there may be less
liquid to feed the dendrite. From experimental studies, the results were observed that
A380 alloy responded to hot tearing at pouring temperature of 700°C and 800°C.
176
 Iron (Fe) is considered to be impure elements and its solubility is very low in A380
alloy. At equilibrium, Solubility of iron in aluminum is 0.03-0.05 wt.% at the eutectic
temperature of 655° C. Due to insolubility of Fe and some liquid at grain boundaries
and lack of liquid feeding respond to hot tearing.
 Al-Si alloy with high Si content provide a good castability. It is called hypoeutectic
(<12wt % Si), which A380 falls in that category. Feurer’s Lamda model responded to
maximum hot tearing with 0.7% of Si. This model involves with relative hot total
crack length studies as shown in Figure 118 [69].
Figure 118. Feurer’s lamda model for Al-Si alloy [69]
 AT72 (Mg-7Al-2Sn) magnesium alloy was poured at three different temperatures
675°C, 710°C, and 750°C. For all three pouring temperatures, the mold was heated to
156°C, 147°C, and 165°C respectively before pouring of castings.
177
 AT72 alloy exhibited to hot tearing at pouring temperatures of 675°C, 710°C, and
750°C. However, the mold temperatures did not influence hot tearing phenomena of
AT72 alloy at used mold temperatures of 156°C, 147°C, and 165°C.
 Previous studies have shown that magnesium alloys containing 1-2 wt% Al are more
susceptible to hot tearing, however, magnesium alloys with 8 wt% Al are not
susceptible to hot tearing as shown in Figure 119 [14].
 Mg-7Al-2Sn contains 7wt%Al which is susceptible to hot tearing. Although addition
of 0.5 wt% Sn (tin) in AZ91 alloy, the fluidity was increased, hot cracking was
decreased. The fluidity was decreased with content below 0.5 wt% Sn as shown in 120
[14,72].
Figure 119. Hot cracking susceptibility for Mg-Al alloy [14]
178
Figure 120. Fluidity of AZ91 alloy as a function of Sn content [72]
6.2 CONCLUSIONS
 Enhanced Constrained Rod Casting (ECRC) has been designed and manufactured as a
novel method to study hot tearing characteristics of die casting alloys.
 The present method was successfully tested and qualified as quantitative measurement
techniques to characterize hot tearing phenomena through experimental studies of
A206.2, A380, Test-A, and AT72 for die casting alloys.
 Low thermal expansion of Quartz rods have been used in all experimental studies to
measure contraction forces compare to high thermal expansion of threaded steel rods.
Experimental studies with quartz rods provide better accuracy in measuring contraction
forces.
 Sprue design was optimized in order to improve the flow so no area of the casting
freezes early. The filling velocity was improved by 42.4%.
179
tearing. As the casting temperature increased from 700°C to 760°C on second sample
of A206.2 casting, a greater amount of hot tearing in the casting was observed.
 A206.2 alloy exhibited higher hot tearing at 760°C and 800 °C than 700°C of pouring
temperatures. That was influenced by both content of %Cu in alloy and pouring
temperatures.
 Test A-alloy did not show hot tearing occurred at 700°C of pouring temperature. At the
pouring temperatures of 750°C and 800°C, Test-A alloy did not show hot tearing in the
longest rod. Therefore, Test-A alloy is a good alloy.
phase, which expands and feed dendrites through surface tension during solidification,
hence reduces shrinkage porosity. Also, it contains high heat of fusion which maintain
the heat and fluidity.
 The first sample and third samples of A380 alloy did not show hot tearing at 700°C and
800 °C of pouring temperatures. The second sample of A380 alloy did not generate a
basic shape in the time vs load plots due to low pouring temperature.
 AT72 did not show hot tearing in the longest rod poured at 675 °C, 710 °C, and 750
°C. When the mold and pouring temperatures were increased, the contraction force rose
sharply.
 Numerical simulation showed that A206.2 alloy had the shrinkage of 7.68 %. When
pouring temperature increased 760°C, the shrinkage increased to 8.33%. Thus, the
pouring temperature influenced the volumetric shrinkage. The theoretical value of Al-
180
4.5%Cu showed a shrinkage value of 6.3%. A206.2 alloy exhibited higher shrinkage
due to addition of 4.7%Cu content. The shrinkage of 7.68% is close to a theoretical
value of 6.3%. Higher shrinkage is caused due to variation in Cu content.
 The shrinkage of 4.61% correlates with theoretical value of 3.8 % because of the
variation in Si content.
 In Niyama criterion, it observed for A206.2 alloy that shrinkage porosity increased
when pouring temperatures were increased. Shrinkage porosity occurred at transition
between thicker and thinner section due to differential cooling.
 A380 alloy had higher thermal strain compare to Test-A. This was due to Test-A-alloy
having a high thermal conductivity and a lower density than A380 alloy, which is
influenced at elevated temperatures. Both density and thermal conductivity have
greater influences in material deformation.
 Analysis results from experimental studies have demonstrated in determining location
of hot spots, location of hot tearing formation with respect to temperatures and time for
A206.2, A380, Test-A, and AT72 die casting alloys.
 In conclusion, current studies are directly correlated with previous studies that hot
tearing is influenced by pouring temperatures, alloys compositions, and mold
temperatures.
 Each alloy generated a characteristic shape in the time vs load plots. However, the basic
shapes remain the same over all pouring temperatures for that alloy. It has to do with
solidification characteristics of that alloy.
181
 Development of the Enhanced Constrained Rod Casting (ECRC) has been successfully
tested through experimental studies, hot tearing predictive models, and numerical
simulations.
 ECRC can be a useful tool for casting industries and scientific communities so they can
test die casting alloys for hot tearing defects before releasing the materials for
production.
6.3 FUTURE RESEARCH
Further investigations are required to extend the research that are presented in this
dissertation. The following suggestions are presented below for further investigation of
research.
 Measure the contraction force on individual rod separately by blocking the
passage of other rods (B, C, D). Compare contraction forces and cooling curves with
current studies. See Figure 121.
 Develop a numerical model to study the shrinkage in the casting and compare
with current studies.
 Consider larger diameter of quart rods with uniform threads to measure
contraction forces since ½” diameter of quartz rods did crack during axial forces.
182
Figure 121. Proposal for future research work
183
REFERENCES
1. Campbell, J., “Castings”, 2nd Edition, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003, pp.117-305.
2. Argo, D., Pekguleryuz, M., Labelle, P., Vermette, P., Bouchard, R., and Lefebvre,
M., “PROCESS PARAMETERS AND DIECASTING OF NORANDA’S AJ52
HIGH TEMPERATURE MG-AL-SR ALLOY”, TMS (The Minerals, Metals &
Materials Society), 2002
3. Grasso, P.D., Drezet, J.M., and Rappaz, M., “Hot Tear Formation and Coalescence
Observations in Organic Alloys”, January 2002 JOM-e: TMS
4. Tzamtzis, S., Zhang, H., Xia, M., Hari Babu, N., Fan, Z., “Recycling of high grade
die casting AM series magnesium scrap with the melt conditioned high pressure die
casting (MC-HPDC) process”, Materials Science and Engineering A, 2011.
5. Cheng, C.M., Chou, C.P., Lee, I.K., Kuo, I.C., “Susceptibility to Hot Cracking and
Weldment Heat Treatment of Haynes 230 Super alloy”, J. Mater. Sci. Technol.,
Vol.22 No.5, 2006.
6. Eskin, D.G. and Katgerman, “A Quest for a New Hot Tearing Criterion”,
Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A Volume 38A, July 2007-1511.
184
7. Monroe, C, and Beckerman, C., “Simulation of Hot Tearing and Distortion during
Casting of Steel - Comparison with Experiments”, in Proceeding of the 60th SFSA
Technical and Operating Conference, Paper No. 5.7, Steel Founders Society of
America, Chicago, Il, 2006.
8. Cao, G. and Kou, S., “Hot cracking of binary Mg–Al alloy castings”, Materials
Science and Engineering A, 417 (2006) 230–238.
9. Sylvia, J. Gerin, “Cast metal Technology”, Addison-Wesley Publication Company,
1972.
10. Li, S., “Hot Tearing in Cast Aluminum Alloys: Measures and Effects of Process
Variables”, Ph.D. Dissertation, 2010.
11. Rowley, M. T., “International Atlas of Casting Defects”, American Foundrymen’s
Society, 1993, pp. 140-141.
14. Cao, G. and Kou, S., “Hot cracking of binary Mg–Al alloy castings”, Materials
Science and Engineering A, 417 (2006) 230–238.
15. Zheng, Z., Hort, N., Huang, Y., Petri, N., Utke, O., and Kainer, K., “ Quantitative
Determination of Hot tearing in Mg-Al Binary Alloys”, Materials Science Forum.,
Vols. 618-619(2009), 533-540.
185
16. Zhou, L., Huang, Y. D., Mao, P.L., Kainer, K.U., Lie, Z., and Hort, N., “ Influence
of Composition on hot tearing in binary Mg-Zn Alloys”, International Journal of
cast Metal Research, 2011, Vol.24., pp.170-176.
17. Kamga, H.K., Larouche, D., Bournane, M., Rahem, A., “Hot tearing of aluminum-
copper B206 alloys with iron and silicon additions”, Materials Science and
Engineering, A 527(2010), pp. 7413-7423.
18. Wang, Y., Wang, Q., Wu, G., Zhu, Y., and Ding W., “Hot-tearing susceptibility of
Mg–9Al–xZn alloy”, Materials Letters 57 (2002) 929– 934.
19. Wang, Y., Wang, Q., Wu, G., Zhu, Y., and Ding W., Ma, C., “Effects of Zn and
RE additions on the solidification behavior of Mg-9Al magnesium alloy”, Materials
Science and Engineering A342 (2003) 178-182.
20. Bichler, L., Ravindran C., Sediako, D., “Onset of Hot Tearing in AE42 Magnesium
Alloys”, Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, Vol. 48, No 1, pp. 81-90, 2009.
21. Bichler, L., and Ravindran, “New developments in assessing hot tearing in
magnesium alloy castings”, Materials and Design 31 (2010) S17–S23.
22. Esfahani, M.R. B. Niroumand, B., “Study of hot tearing of A206 aluminum alloy
using Instrumented Constrained T-shaped Casting method”, Materials
Characterization, 61(2010), pp. 318-324.
23. Pekguleryuz, M.O., Li, X., Aliravci, C.A., “In-Situ Investigation of Hot Tearing
in Aluminum Alloy AA1050 via Acoustic Emission and Cooling Curve Analysis”,
Metallurgical and Materials Transaction A. 02 April, 2009.
186
24. Eskin, D. G., Suyitno, and Katgerman, L., "Mechanical Properties in the Semi-
Solid Sate and Hot Tearing of Aluminum Alloys," Progress in Materials Science,
vol. 49, pp. 629-711, (2004).
25. Sengupta J, Cockcroft, S.L., Maijer, D.M., Larouche, A., “Quantification of
temperature, stress, and strain fields during the start-up phase of direct chill casting
process by using a 3D fully coupled thermal and stress model for AA5182 ingots”,
Materials Science and Engineering A 397 (2005),pp. 157–177.
26. Lin, Z., Monroe, C.A., Huff, R.K., and Beckermann, C., “PREDICTION OF HOT
TEAR DEFECTS IN STEEL CASTINGS USING A DAMAGE BASED
MODEL”, Modeling of Casting, Welding, and Advanced Solidification process-
XII, TMS, 2009.
27. Ridolfi, M.R., Fraschetti, S., Vito, A.D., “Mathematical Modeling of Hot Tearing
in the Solidification of Continuously Cast Round Billets”, Metallurgical and
Materials Transactions B Volume 41B, December 2010—1293.
28. Feurer, U., “Quality control of engineering alloys and the role of metals science”
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1977, pp. 131–45.
29. Clyne, T.W. , Davies, G.J., “Proceedings of the Conference on Solidification and
Casting of metals”, Metals Society, London, 1979, pp. 274–278.
30. Clyne, T.W. , Davies, G.J., “The Influence of composition on solidification
cracking susceptibility in binary alloys systems”, Journal Brit. Foundry man, 74,
No. 4, (1981), pp. 65-73.
187
31. Katgerman, L., “A Mathematical Model for Hot Cracking of Aluminum Alloys
during D.C. Casting”, Journal of Metal, 34 (2), 1982, pp. 46–49.
32. Hatami, N., Babaei, R., Dadashzadeh, M., Davami, P., “Modeling of hot tearing
formation during solidification”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2 0 5
( 2008), pp. 506–513.
Engineering, A 527(2010), pp. 7413-7423.
vol. 49, pp. 629-711, (2004).
36. Li, S., “Hot Tearing in Cast Aluminum Alloys: Measures and Effects of Process
Variables”, Ph.D. Dissertation, 2010.
39. Campbell, J., “Casting Practice”, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004.
40. Singer, A.R.R., Jennings, P.H., Hot-Shortness of the Aluminum-Silicon Alloys of
Commercial Purity, J. Inst. Met., 73, (1974), pp. 197-212.
188
41. Pellini, W.S., Strain Theory of Hot Tearing, The Foundry, 80, (1952), pp. 124-199.
42. Flinn, R.A., “Fundamentals of Metal Casting”, Addison-Wesley, 1963.
43. J.C. Borland, “Generalized Theory of Super-Solidus Cracking in Welds and
Casting”, British Welding Journal. Vol. 7, no. 8, 1960, pp. 508-512.
44. Apblett, W.R., and Pellini, W.S., “Factors Which Influence Weld Hot Cracking”
Welding Research, vol.19, 1954, pp.83.
45. Feurer, U., “Quality control of engineering alloys and the role of metals science”
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1977, pp. 131–45.
46. Clyne, T.W. , Davies, G.J., “Proceedings of the Conference on Solidification and
Casting of metals”, Metals Society, London, 1979, pp. 274–278.
47. Clyne, T.W. , Davies, G.J., “The Influence of composition on solidification
cracking susceptibility in binary alloys systems”, Journal Brit. Foundry man, 74,
No. 4, (1981), pp. 65-73.
48. Katgerman, L., “A Mathematical Model for Hot Cracking of Aluminum Alloys
during D.C. Casting”, Journal of Metal, 34 (2), 1982, pp. 46–49.
49. Hatami, N., Babaei, R., Dadashzadeh, M., Davami, P., “Modeling of hot tearing
formation during solidification”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2 0 5
(2008), pp. 506–513.
Engineering, A 527(2010), pp. 7413-7423.
189
vol. 49, pp. 629-711. (2004).
53. Elger, D.F., Williams, B.C., Crowe, C.T., and Roberson, J.A., “Engineering
Mechanics”, 10th Edition, pp.169-237.
54. Mitsubishi_Engineering_PlasticCorporation:www.m.ep.co.jp/en/pdf/product/reny
/old_designing
55. Beeley, P.R., and Smart, R. F., “Investment casting”, 1995, pp. 150-168.
56. Sylvia, J. G., “Cast Metals Technology”, 1972, pp.175-195.
57. Ometek Incorporated, 790 Cross Pointe Rd, Columbus, OH 43230
58. Zhen, Z., Hort, N., Huang, Y., "Quantitative Determination on Hot Tearing in mg-
Al Binary Alloys," Materials Science Forum, vol. 618-619, pp. 533-540. (2009)
59. Futek Advanced Sensor technology, Inc. 10 Thomas, Irvine CA-92618, USA
60. Quartz Scientific, Inc., 819 East Street, Fairport Harbor, Ohio 44077
61. Data Acquisition, measurement Computing, 10 Commerce Way, Norton, MA
02766, USA.
62. DATAQ Instruments, Inc., 241 Springside Drive, Akron, OH 44333
63. Omega Engineering, One Omega Drive, P.O. Box 4047, Stamford, Connecticut
06907-0047.
64. McMaster-Carr, P.O. Box5370, Princeton, NJ 08543-5370
65. Trialco, Inc., 900 E 14th Street, Chicago Heights, IL 60411.
190
66. Ragab, A. E., “SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF CASTING DISTORTION AND
RESIDUAL STRESS PREDICTION THROUGH SIMULATION MODELING
AND EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION”, Dissertation, 2003, the Ohio State
University.
67. Choi, H., Cho, W., Konishi, H., Kou, S., and Li, X., “Nanoparticle-Induced
Superior Hot Tearing Resistance of A206 Alloy”, METALLURGICAL AND
MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A, VOLUME 44A, APRIL 2013—1897.
68. Warrington, D., McCartney, D.G., “Development of a New Hot-Cracking Test for
Aluminum Alloys”, Cast Metals, Vol. 2, No. 3, (1989), pp. 134-143.
69. Feurer, U., Matematisched Model der Warmrissneigung von binaren
Aluminiumlegierungen, Giesserei Forsch, 2, (1976), pp. 75.
70. ANSYS, Inc., “Theory Reference for Mechanical APDL and Mechanical
Applications and Tutorials”, 275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg, PA 15317.
71. Rana, R.S., Purohit, R., and Das S. “ Review on the Influence of Alloying elements
on the Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Alloys and Aluminum Alloy
Compositions”, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications,
Volume 2, Issue 6, June 2012 1 ISSN 2250-3153.
72. Turen, Y. “Effect of Sn addition on microstructure, mechanical and casting
properties of AZ91 alloy”, Materials and Design 49 (2013) 1009–1015.
73. Monroe, C., and Beckmann, C., “The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society” ,
JOM, Vol. 66, No. 8, 2014.
191
74. Carlson K., and Beckermann, C. “Prediction of Shrinkage Pore Volume Fraction
Using a Dimensionless Niyama Criterion”, METALLURGICAL AND
MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 40A, JANUARY 2009-16.3
75. Drezet J.M.(1), and , Allehaux, D.(2), “Application of the Rappaz-Drezet-
Gremaud Hot Tearing Criterion to Welding of Aluminum Alloys”, (1)Federal
Polytechnic School of Lausanne, Materials Simulation Laboratory, Lausanne,
Switzerland (2) EADS Corporate Research Centre-Paris, Suresnes, France.
76. Delphi K-Alloy/A304: www.delphi.com/manufacturers/dti/available-
technologies/engineered-materials-for-license/k-alloy-k-alloy-sp.
192
APPENDIX-A: EXPERIMENTAL DATA FOR A206.2 ALLOY
Test-1, A206.2, 700 °C

Contraction Contraction Force Contraction Temperature
Time (S) Force (V) (lb) Force (N) (°C)
0 0.01646 0.823 3.660704 0
1 0.0154 0.77 3.42496 643
2 0.03356 1.678 7.463744 586.5
3 0.05208 2.604 11.582592 578
4 0.10466 5.233 23.276384 568.5
5 0.1097 5.485 24.39728 559
6 0.07032 3.516 15.639168 553
7 0.0708 3.54 15.74592 546
8 0.07358 3.679 16.364192 540
9 0.07528 3.764 16.742272 538
10 0.0785 3.925 17.4584 530
11 0.09226 4.613 20.518624 526
12 0.11022 5.511 24.512928 521
13 0.1339 6.695 29.77936 519
14 0.1577 7.885 35.07248 516
15 0.1861 9.305 41.38864 514.5
16 0.2212 11.06 49.19488 512
17 0.26256 13.128 58.393344 509
18 0.30505 15.2525 67.84312 508
19 0.35236 17.618 78.364864 507
20 0.40542 20.271 90.165408 506
21 0.45366 22.683 100.893984 503
22 0.49862 24.931 110.893088 499
23 0.4956 24.78 110.22144 495.5
24 0.49836 24.918 110.835264 488
25 0.49908 24.954 110.995392 478
193
A206.2 Alloy @ 700 °C
26 0.50184 25.092 111.609216 470.5

27 0.51022 25.511 113.472928 458
28 0.51334 25.667 114.166816 449
29 0.51788 25.894 115.176512 442
30 0.5188 25.94 115.38112 436
31 0.52068 26.034 115.799232 429.5
32 0.52194 26.097 116.079456 423
33 0.52366 26.183 116.461984 414.5
34 0.52426 26.213 116.595424 406
35 0.52444 26.222 116.635456 398
36 0.52638 26.319 117.066912 389
37 0.5255 26.275 116.8712 382
38 0.52712 26.356 117.231488 368
39 0.52948 26.474 117.756352 360.5
40 0.53114 26.557 118.125536 354
41 0.53034 26.517 117.947616 344
42 0.52908 26.454 117.667392 338
43 0.52962 26.481 117.787488 325.5
44 0.52824 26.412 117.480576 320
45 0.528 26.4 117.4272 316
46 0.529 26.45 117.6496 313
47 0.5246 26.23 116.67104 308
48 0.52746 26.373 117.307104 301
49 0.52312 26.156 116.341888 299
50 0.52148 26.074 115.977152 296
51 0.5219 26.095 116.07056 292
52 0.52274 26.137 116.257376 289
53 0.52212 26.106 116.119488 284
54 0.52242 26.121 116.186208 279
55 0.52118 26.059 115.910432 277
56 0.51884 25.942 115.390016 274
57 0.51986 25.993 115.616864 270
58 0.51962 25.981 115.563488 265
59 0.5186 25.93 115.33664 260
60 0.51906 25.953 115.438944 258
194
Header Size: 8 Test-2 - Pouring temperature: 760° C
Version: 2
Sampling Interval: 0.1666667
Sampling Rate: 6
Sample Count: 3725
Device Serial Number: 0
Contraction Contraction
Time (s) Contraction Force (V) Forces (lb) Forces (N) Temperature (C)
0 0 0 0 0
0 0.0085 0.425 1.8904 734.5
1 0.016533333 0.82666665 3.677013259 681.5
2 0.05505 2.7525 12.24312 672
3 0.258766667 12.93833335 57.54970674 664
4 0.35335 17.6675 78.58504 651
5 0.296316667 14.81583335 65.90082674 645
6 0.256566667 12.82833335 57.06042674 631.5
7 0.2478 12.39 55.11072 622
8 0.24836667 12.4183335 55.23674741 612
9 0.248216667 12.41083335 55.20338674 602
10 0.252183333 12.60916665 56.08557326 595
11 0.261616667 13.08083335 58.18354674 591.5
12 0.274783333 13.73916665 61.11181326 588
13 0.294366667 14.71833335 65.46714674 584.5
14 0.318583333 15.92916665 70.85293326 581
15 0.340833333 17.04166665 75.80133326 579
16 0.3522 17.61 78.32928 576
17 0.360416667 18.02083335 80.15666674 573
18 0.3688 18.44 82.02112 569
19 0.374766667 18.73833335 83.34810674 566
20 0.379883333 18.99416665 84.48605326 558
21 0.383616667 19.18083335 85.31634674 553
22 0.386233333 19.31166665 85.89829326 546.5
23 0.38715 19.3575 86.10216 540.5
24 0.38575 19.2875 85.7908 534
25 0.38465 19.2325 85.54616 523
26 0.383433333 19.17166665 85.27557326 511
27 0.380716667 19.03583335 84.67138674 499
28 0.375566667 18.77833335 83.52602674 488
195
A206.2 Alloy @ 760 °C
29 0.378183333 18.90916665 84.10797326 482

30 0.373933333 18.69666665 83.16277326 468
31 0.37655 18.8275 83.74472 459
32 0.377683333 18.88416665 83.99677326 449
33 0.371216667 18.56083335 82.55858674 443
34 0.374016667 18.70083335 83.18130674 439
35 0.3749 18.745 83.37776 433
36 0.36875 18.4375 82.01 426
37 0.369 18.45 82.0656 417
38 0.36015 18.0075 80.09736 410.5
39 0.360816667 18.04083335 80.24562674 401
40 0.361716667 18.08583335 80.44578674 398
41 0.356316667 17.81583335 79.24482674 395
42 0.357216667 17.86083335 79.44498674 392
43 0.340383333 17.01916665 75.70125326 389
44 0.336433333 16.82166665 74.82277326 388
45 0.335183333 16.75916665 74.54477326 386
46 0.334916667 16.74583335 74.48546674 385
47 0.318933333 15.94666665 70.93077326 383.5
48 0.3138 15.69 69.78912 380.5
49 0.31215 15.6075 69.42216 378.5
50 0.3115 15.575 69.2776 378
51 0.309916667 15.49583335 68.92546674 377
52 0.308966667 15.44833335 68.71418674 375
53 0.307583333 15.37916665 68.40653326 372
54 0.306733333 15.33666665 68.21749326 370
55 0.305616667 15.28083335 67.96914674 368
56 0.3049 15.245 67.80976 365
57 0.30495 15.2475 67.82088 362
58 0.303416667 15.17083335 67.47986674 360.5
59 0.30315 15.1575 67.42056 360
60 0.303183333 15.15916665 67.42797326 358
61 0.300066667 15.00333335 66.73482674 355
62 0.299816667 14.99083335 66.67922674 352
63 0.29945 14.9725 66.59768 349
64 0.299066667 14.95333335 66.51242674 346
196
A206.2 Alloy @ 760 °C
65 0.299116667 14.95583335 66.52354674 344

66 0.298666667 14.93333335 66.42346674 341
67 0.298333333 14.91666665 66.34933326 339
68 0.2982 14.91 66.31968 336
69 0.297566667 14.87833335 66.17882674 335
70 0.297266667 14.86333335 66.11210674 331
71 0.296866667 14.84333335 66.02314674 330.5
72 0.296516667 14.82583335 65.94530674 330
73 0.296916667 14.84583335 66.03426674 328
74 0.296116667 14.80583335 65.85634674 328
75 0.296016667 14.80083335 65.83410674 323
76 0.296133333 14.80666665 65.86005326 322
77 0.295133333 14.75666665 65.63765326 319
78 0.2952 14.76 65.65248 314
79 0.295066667 14.75333335 65.62282674 315
80 0.294633333 14.73166665 65.52645326 312
81 0.294183333 14.70916665 65.42637326 313
82 0.294416667 14.72083335 65.47826674 310
83 0.2942 14.71 65.43008 308
84 0.294 14.7 65.3856 305
85 0.293366667 14.66833335 65.24474674 303
86 0.294016667 14.70083335 65.38930674 298
87 0.29296667 14.6483335 65.15578741 295
88 0.292966667 14.64833335 65.15578674 293
89 0.293166667 14.65833335 65.20026674 291
90 0.292716667 14.63583335 65.10018674 289
91 0.29275 14.6375 65.1076 288
92 0.2924 14.62 65.02976 284
93 0.2927 14.635 65.09648 283
94 0.29205 14.6025 64.95192 280
95 0.291866667 14.59333335 64.91114674 280
96 0.2921 14.605 64.96304 279
97 0.29175 14.5875 64.8852 282
98 0.291833333 14.59166665 64.90373326 280
99 0.291216667 14.56083335 64.76658674 278
100 0.291666667 14.58333335 64.86666674 275
197
Test 3 - Pouring Temperature: 800°C
Header Size: 8
Version: 2
Sampling Interval: 1
Sampling Rate: 1
Sample Count: 452
Culture Info: en-US
Sample Number
Date/Time CHANNEL0 Events
Thermal Thermal
Thermal Contraction
Time (S) Contraction Contraction Force Temperature (°C)
Force (V)
Force (lb) (N)
0 0 0 0 0
0 0.0075 0.375 1.668 750
1 0.0183 0.915 4.06992 683.5
2 0.0433 2.165 9.62992 673.5
3 0.0726 3.63 16.14624 646
4 0.1151 5.755 25.59824 638
5 0.1824 9.12 40.56576 633.5
6 0.3178 15.89 70.67872 630.5
7 0.359 17.95 79.8416 627
8 0.3221 16.105 71.63504 622.5
9 0.3097 15.485 68.87728 617
10 0.2895 14.475 64.3848 611.5
11 0.273 13.65 60.7152 606
12 0.2689 13.445 59.80336 599.5
13 0.2807 14.035 62.42768 591.5
14 0.2878 14.39 64.00672 580.5
15 0.2979 14.895 66.25296 568.5
16 0.3026 15.13 67.29824 556
17 0.3167 15.835 70.43408 543.5
18 0.3304 16.52 73.48096 531
19 0.3377 16.885 75.10448 520
20 0.3444 17.22 76.59456 512.5
21 0.3447 17.235 76.66128 505
22 0.3414 17.07 75.92736 494
198
A206.2 Alloy @ 800 °C
23 0.3402 17.01 75.66048 482

24 0.3344 16.72 74.37056 470.5
25 0.3276 16.38 72.85824 460
26 0.3299 16.495 73.36976 450
27 0.3341 16.705 74.30384 441
28 0.3359 16.795 74.70416 432
29 0.3375 16.875 75.06 423
30 0.3167 15.835 70.43408 414.5
31 0.3081 15.405 68.52144 406.5
32 0.3049 15.245 67.80976 398.5
33 0.299 14.95 66.4976 391
34 0.2945 14.725 65.4968 383.5
35 0.2929 14.645 65.14096 376.5
36 0.2871 14.355 63.85104 370
37 0.2863 14.315 63.67312 363
38 0.2825 14.125 62.828 357
39 0.2823 14.115 62.78352 351
40 0.2805 14.025 62.3832 345
41 0.2784 13.92 61.91616 339.5
42 0.2804 14.02 62.36096 334
43 0.2794 13.97 62.13856 329
44 0.281 14.05 62.4944 323.5
45 0.2802 14.01 62.31648 318.5
46 0.2834 14.17 63.02816 314
47 0.28 14 62.272 309.5
48 0.2833 14.165 63.00592 305
49 0.2823 14.115 62.78352 300.5
50 0.2839 14.195 63.13936 296
51 0.2841 14.205 63.18384 292
52 0.2846 14.23 63.29504 288
53 0.2852 14.26 63.42848 284
54 0.2852 14.26 63.42848 280.5
55 0.2843 14.215 63.22832 277
56 0.2861 14.305 63.62864 273.5
57 0.2819 14.095 62.69456 269.5
58 0.2835 14.175 63.0504 266.5
59 0.2829 14.145 62.91696 263
199
A206.2 Alloy @ 800 °C
60 0.2836 14.18 63.07264 260

61 0.2835 14.175 63.0504 256.5
62 0.2821 14.105 62.73904 253.5
63 0.2844 14.22 63.25056 250.5
64 0.2796 13.98 62.18304 247.5
65 0.2821 14.105 62.73904 245
66 0.2818 14.09 62.67232 242
67 0.2811 14.055 62.51664 239
68 0.2817 14.085 62.65008 236.5
69 0.2828 14.14 62.89472 234
70 0.2797 13.985 62.20528 231.5
71 0.2817 14.085 62.65008 229
72 0.2813 14.065 62.56112 226.5
73 0.2783 13.915 61.89392 224
74 0.28 14 62.272 221.5
75 0.2807 14.035 62.42768 219.5
76 0.2791 13.955 62.07184 217.5
77 0.279 13.95 62.0496 215
78 0.2788 13.94 62.00512 213
79 0.2801 14.005 62.29424 211
80 0.2783 13.915 61.89392 210
81 0.2786 13.93 61.96064 209.5
82 0.2793 13.965 62.11632 208
83 0.2773 13.865 61.67152 207
84 0.2784 13.92 61.91616 206.5
85 0.2793 13.965 62.11632 205
86 0.2772 13.86 61.64928 203
87 0.2767 13.835 61.53808 202
88 0.2779 13.895 61.80496 203
89 0.2764 13.82 61.47136 202
90 0.2738 13.69 60.89312 201
200
APPENDIX-B: EXPERIMENTAL DATA FOR A380 ALLOY
Test-1, A380-Pouring Tmperature - 700 °C

Header Size: 8
Version: 2
Sampling Rate: 1
Sample Count: 380
Culture Info: en-US
Contraction Contraction Temperature
Time (S)
Force (V) Force (N) (°C)
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 656.5
1 0 0 650
2 0.04 8.896 624
3 0.3886 86.42464 602.5
4 0.271 60.2704 555.5
5 0.4206 93.54144 517
6 0.565 125.656 514.5
7 0.568 126.3232 512.5
8 0.564 125.4336 512
9 0.554 123.2096 510.5
10 0.542 120.5408 510
11 0.5438 120.94112 509.5
12 0.541 120.3184 508.5
13 0.539 119.8736 508
14 0.538 119.6512 506.5
15 0.533 118.5392 504.5
16 0.523 116.3152 502.5
17 0.5204 115.73696 500
18 0.519 115.4256 496
19 0.516 114.7584 490.5
20 0.515 114.536 484
21 0.515 114.536 474.5
22 0.508 112.9792 465
201
A380 Alloy @ 700 °C
23 0.508 112.9792 456.5

24 0.508 112.9792 448.5
25 0.508 112.9792 439.5
26 0.4912 109.24288 430
27 0.4908 109.15392 420.5
28 0.4902 109.02048 412
29 0.49 108.976 402.5
30 0.4846 107.77504 394
31 0.4846 107.77504 386.5
32 0.4846 107.77504 379.5
33 0.4846 107.77504 372.5
34 0.485 107.864 366
35 0.4816 107.10784 360
36 0.4815 107.0856 350.5
37 0.4814 107.06336 346
38 0.4812 107.01888 341
39 0.4811 106.99664 336
40 0.4805 106.8632 331
41 0.48 106.752 326.5
42 0.48 106.752 322
43 0.48 106.752 317.5
44 0.48 106.752 313
45 0.48 106.752 309
46 0.48 106.752 305
47 0.4789 106.50736 301
48 0.4789 106.50736 297
49 0.4789 106.50736 293
50 0.4789 106.50736 289.5
51 0.4788 106.48512 285.5
52 0.4786 106.44064 282
53 0.4784 106.39616 278.5
54 0.4783 106.37392 275
55 0.4785 106.4184 272
202
A380 Alloy @ 700 °C
56 0.4783 106.37392 269

57 0.4785 106.4184 265.5
58 0.4782 106.35168 262.5
59 0.4782 106.35168 256.5
60 0.4782 106.35168 253.5
61 0.4782 106.35168 250.5
62 0.4772 106.12928 248
63 0.4772 106.12928 245
64 0.4772 106.12928 243
65 0.4772 106.12928 241
66 0.4772 106.12928 238.5
67 0.4772 106.12928 236.5
68 0.4772 106.12928 234
69 0.4772 106.12928 232.5
70 0.4772 106.12928 230
71 0.4752 105.68448 228.5
72 0.4752 105.68448 226.5
73 0.4752 105.68448 224.5
74 0.4752 105.68448 222.5
75 0.4752 105.68448 220.5
76 0.4752 105.68448 218.5
77 0.4752 105.68448 216.5
78 0.4752 105.68448 214.5
79 0.4752 105.68448 212.5
80 0.4752 105.68448 211
81 0.4752 105.68448 209
82 0.4752 105.68448 207.5
83 0.4752 105.68448 205.5
84 0.4752 105.68448 204
85 0.4752 105.68448 202
86 0.4752 105.68448 200.5
87 0.4752 105.68448 199
88 0.4688 104.26112 197.5
89 0.4688 104.26112 196
90 0.4688 104.26112 194.5
203
Header Size: 8 Test 2 - Load - A380-750°C
Version: 2
Sampling Rate: 1
Sample Count: 318
Culture Info: en-US
CHANNEL0Time (S)
Sample Number
Date/Time Force (V) Force (N) (°C)
0 00:00.0 0 0 0 0 0
0 00:00.0 0 0 0 0 661.5
1 48:35.8 0.0038 1 0.1461 32.49264 648.5
2 48:36.8 0.0048 2 0.351 78.0624 596.5
3 48:37.8 0.0043 3 0.5006 111.33344 566
4 48:38.8 0.0035 4 0.595 132.328 556
5 48:39.8 0.0031 5 0.59 131.216 535
6 48:40.8 0.0065 6 0.568 126.3232 528
7 48:41.8 0.0165 7 0.567 126.1008 502
8 48:42.8 0.1461 8 0.564 125.4336 486
9 48:43.8 0.351 9 0.562 124.9888 466
10 48:44.8 0.5006 10 0.562 124.9888 432
11 48:45.8 0.595 11 0.562 124.9888 412
12 48:46.8 0.59 12 0.561 124.7664 402
13 48:47.8 0.568 13 0.55 122.32 392
14 48:48.8 0.567 14 0.54 120.096 390
15 48:49.8 0.564 15 0.54 120.096 390.5
16 48:50.8 0.562 16 0.53 117.872 386.5
17 48:51.8 0.562 17 0.53 117.872 381.5
18 48:52.8 0.562 18 0.525 116.76 379
19 48:53.8 0.561 19 0.525 116.76 373.5
20 48:54.8 0.55 20 0.524 116.5376 367.5
21 48:55.8 0.54 21 0.52 115.648 360
22 48:56.8 0.54 22 0.52 115.648 354
23 48:57.8 0.53 23 0.51 113.424 348.5
24 48:58.8 0.53 24 0.51 113.424 343
25 48:59.8 0.525 25 0.5 111.2 337.5
26 49:00.8 0.525 26 0.5 111.2 332
27 49:01.8 0.524 27 0.498 110.7552 326.5
28 49:02.8 0.52 28 0.498 110.7552 321
29 49:03.8 0.52 29 0.4886 108.66464 316
30 49:04.8 0.51 30 0.4862 108.13088 311
204
A380 @ 750 °C
31 49:05.8 0.51 31 0.4846 107.77504 306

32 49:06.8 0.5 32 0.4839 107.61936 301.5
33 49:07.8 0.5 33 0.4837 107.57488 296.5
34 49:08.8 0.498 34 0.4828 107.37472 292
35 49:09.8 0.498 35 0.4825 107.308 288
36 49:10.8 0.4886 36 0.4816 107.10784 283.5
37 49:11.8 0.4862 37 0.481 106.9744 280
38 49:12.8 0.4846 38 0.4805 106.8632 276
39 49:13.8 0.4839 39 0.4805 106.8632 272.5
40 49:14.8 0.4837 40 0.4802 106.79648 269
41 49:15.8 0.4828 41 0.4802 106.79648 265.5
42 49:16.8 0.4825 42 0.48 106.752 262
43 49:17.8 0.4816 43 0.4799 106.72976 259
44 49:18.8 0.481 44 0.4798 106.70752 256
45 49:19.8 0.4805 45 0.4796 106.66304 253
46 49:20.8 0.4805 46 0.4792 106.57408 250.5
47 49:21.8 0.4802 47 0.479 106.5296 248
48 49:22.8 0.4802 48 0.4785 106.4184 245.5
49 49:23.8 0.48 49 0.4784 106.39616 243
50 49:24.8 0.4799 50 0.4783 106.37392 240.5
51 49:25.8 0.4798 51 0.4782 106.35168 238.5
52 49:26.8 0.4796 52 0.4781 106.32944 236
53 49:27.8 0.4792 53 0.4781 106.32944 234
54 49:28.8 0.479 54 0.4781 106.32944 232
55 49:29.8 0.4785 55 0.478 106.3072 230
56 49:30.8 0.4784 56 0.478 106.3072 228
205
Test-3, A380-800°C
Header Size: 8
Version: 2
Sampling Rate: 1
Sample Count: 317
Culture Info: en-US
CHANNEL0 Sample Number Date/Time CHANNEL0
Time (S) Temperature (° C)
Forces (V) Forces (N)
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 703
1 0.0404 8.98496 620.5
2 0.0634 14.10016 505.5
3 0.0863 19.19312 482
4 0.1703 37.87472 472
5 0.3021 67.18704 465
6 0.4355 96.8552 460.5
7 0.4862 108.13088 457
8 0.4777 106.24048 455.5
9 0.4423 98.36752 454.5
10 0.4472 99.45728 453
11 0.4479 99.61296 450.5
12 0.466 103.6384 448.5
13 0.4855 107.9752 447.5
14 0.5202 115.69248 446.5
15 0.5629 125.18896 446
16 0.6025 133.996 446
17 0.6405 142.4472 440.5
18 0.6769 150.54256 438
19 0.7033 156.41392 438.5
20 0.7223 160.63952 435.5
21 0.7336 163.15264 431.5
22 0.7402 164.62048 427
23 0.7363 163.75312 421
24 0.7211 160.37264 413
25 0.6974 155.10176 404.5
26 0.6769 150.54256 396
27 0.6615 147.1176 388
28 0.6471 143.91504 381.5
206
A380 Alloy @ 800 °C
29 0.6347 141.15728 375

30 0.6244 138.86656 369
31 0.6173 137.28752 362.5
32 0.6071 135.01904 356
33 0.6015 133.7736 350
34 0.5949 132.30576 344
35 0.592 131.6608 338.5
36 0.5905 131.3272 333
37 0.5885 130.8824 328
38 0.5866 130.45984 323
39 0.5834 129.74816 318.5
40 0.5795 128.8808 314.5
41 0.5761 128.12464 310.5
42 0.571 126.9904 306.5
43 0.5668 126.05632 303
44 0.5629 125.18896 299.5
45 0.561 124.7664 296
46 0.562 124.9888 293
47 0.565 125.656 290
48 0.558 124.0992 287
49 0.557 123.8768 284
50 0.556 123.6544 281.5
51 0.555 123.432 278.5
52 0.553 122.9872 276
53 0.552 122.7648 273.5
54 0.551 122.5424 271
55 0.55 122.32 269
56 0.549 122.0976 266.5
57 0.548 121.8752 264.5
58 0.547 121.6528 262.5
207
APPENDIX-C: EXPERIMENTAL DATA FOR TEST-A ALLOY
Test-1, Test-A Alloy @ 700 °C

Contraction Contraction Contraction Temperature
Time (s) Force (V) Force (lb) Force (N) (°C)
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 650
1 0.01428 0.714 3.175872 627
2 0.01414 0.707 3.144736 601
3 0.01442 0.721 3.207008 592.5
4 0.02092 1.046 4.652608 591.5
5 0.00416 0.208 0.925184 589.5
6 -0.00262 -0.131 -0.582688 585.5
7 -0.00174 -0.087 -0.386976 578
8 0.01694 0.847 3.767456 572
9 0.12212 6.106 27.159488 569.5
10 0.27608 13.804 61.400192 569
11 0.47804 23.902 106.316096 567
12 0.6797 33.985 151.16528 563
13 0.74028 37.014 164.638272 552
14 0.7402 37.01 164.62048 537
15 0.73366 36.683 163.165984 523
16 0.72568 36.284 161.391232 508
17 0.71062 35.531 158.041888 493
18 0.69414 34.707 154.376736 478.5
19 0.68398 34.199 152.117152 465
20 0.67632 33.816 150.413568 453
21 0.66902 33.451 148.790048 441
22 0.6657 33.285 148.05168 431
23 0.65772 32.886 146.276928 421
24 0.65582 32.791 145.854368 411.5
25 0.65508 32.754 145.689792 402.5
208
Test-A Alloy @ 700 °C
26 0.65506 32.753 145.685344 394.5

27 0.65198 32.599 145.000352 386.5
28 0.65186 32.593 144.973664 379
29 0.65172 32.586 144.942528 372
30 0.64642 32.321 143.763808 365.5
31 0.6415 32.075 142.6696 359
32 0.6411 32.055 142.58064 353
33 0.6412 32.06 142.60288 347
34 0.6414 32.07 142.64736 341.5
35 0.6415 32.075 142.6696 336
36 0.6411 32.055 142.58064 331
37 0.6413 32.065 142.62512 326
38 0.64108 32.054 142.576192 321.5
39 0.6406 32.03 142.46944 317
40 0.6406 32.03 142.46944 312.5
41 0.6406 32.03 142.46944 308.5
42 0.6406 32.03 142.46944 304.5
43 0.6404 32.02 142.42496 301
44 0.6404 32.02 142.42496 297
45 0.6404 32.02 142.42496 293.5
46 0.6402 32.01 142.38048 290.5
47 0.6402 32.01 142.38048 287
48 0.6402 32.01 142.38048 284
49 0.6402 32.01 142.38048 281
50 0.6402 32.01 142.38048 278
51 0.64 32 142.336 275.5
52 0.64 32 142.336 272.5
53 0.64 32 142.336 270
54 0.64 32 142.336 267.5
55 0.64 32 142.336 265
56 0.6398 31.99 142.29152 262.5
57 0.6398 31.99 142.29152 260.5
58 0.6398 31.99 142.29152 258
59 0.6398 31.99 142.29152 256
60 0.6398 31.99 142.29152 253.5
209
Test-AAlloy- Pouring Temperature: 750 °C
Time (S) Average (V) Forces (lb) Forces (N) Temperature (C)
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 692
1 0.00592 0.296 1.316608 663.5
2 0.0674 3.37 14.98976 630.5
3 -0.00116 -0.058 -0.257984 599
4 -0.00382 -0.191 -0.849568 587.5
5 -0.00382 -0.191 -0.849568 587
6 -0.00368 -0.184 -0.818432 586.5
7 -0.0003 -0.015 -0.06672 584
8 0.14822 7.411 32.964128 580.5
9 0.43046 21.523 95.734304 576.5
10 0.5423 27.115 120.60752 572.5
11 0.55282 27.641 122.947168 569.5
12 0.55578 27.789 123.605472 569.5
13 0.55708 27.854 123.894592 568.5
14 0.55554 27.777 123.552096 567
15 0.55374 27.687 123.151776 563.5
16 0.5543 27.715 123.27632 557
17 0.55138 27.569 122.626912 544
18 0.55064 27.532 122.462336 526
19 0.55242 27.621 122.858208 509
20 0.55306 27.653 123.000544 494
21 0.55094 27.547 122.529056 480
22 0.54912 27.456 122.124288 466.5
23 0.5477 27.385 121.80848 454.5
24 0.5477 27.385 121.80848 443
25 0.54326 27.163 120.821024 432.5
210
26 0.54194 27.097 120.527456 423

27 0.54172 27.086 120.478528 414
28 0.54156 27.078 120.442944 405.5
29 0.5404 27.02 120.18496 397
30 0.54064 27.032 120.238336 389.5
31 0.53906 26.953 119.886944 382
32 0.5385 26.925 119.7624 375.5
33 0.53772 26.886 119.588928 368.5
34 0.5353 26.765 119.05072 362
35 0.53512 26.756 119.010688 356.5
36 0.53514 26.757 119.015136 350.5
37 0.53542 26.771 119.077408 345
38 0.53318 26.659 118.579232 339.5
39 0.5353 26.765 119.05072 334.5
40 0.5364 26.82 119.29536 329.5
41 0.53558 26.779 119.112992 325
42 0.53578 26.789 119.157472 320
43 0.53512 26.756 119.010688 316
44 0.53778 26.889 119.602272 311.5
45 0.53632 26.816 119.277568 307.5
46 0.5354 26.77 119.07296 303.5
47 0.53556 26.778 119.108544 299.5
48 0.53618 26.809 119.246432 296
49 0.53636 26.818 119.286464 292.5
50 0.53618 26.809 119.246432 289
51 0.53678 26.839 119.379872 285.5
52 0.53674 26.837 119.370976 282.5
53 0.53622 26.811 119.255328 279
54 0.53628 26.814 119.268672 276
55 0.53544 26.772 119.081856 273
56 0.53508 26.754 119.001792 270.5
57 0.53448 26.724 118.868352 267.5
58 0.53538 26.769 119.068512 265
59 0.53384 26.692 118.726016 262
60 0.5336 26.68 118.67264 259.5
211
61 0.53324 26.662 118.592576 257

62 0.5323 26.615 118.38352 254.5
63 0.5323 26.615 118.38352 252.5
64 0.53242 26.621 118.410208 250
65 0.53268 26.634 118.468032 248
66 0.53196 26.598 118.307904 245.5
67 0.531 26.55 118.0944 243.5
68 0.5319 26.595 118.29456 241.5
69 0.5313 26.565 118.16112 239.5
70 0.53128 26.564 118.156672 237.5
71 0.53162 26.581 118.232288 235.5
72 0.53064 26.532 118.014336 234
73 0.52952 26.476 117.765248 232
74 0.52988 26.494 117.845312 230
75 0.52926 26.463 117.707424 228.5
76 0.52832 26.416 117.498368 227
77 0.52874 26.437 117.591776 225
78 0.52866 26.433 117.573984 223.5
79 0.52906 26.453 117.662944 222
80 0.52826 26.413 117.485024 220.5
81 0.52802 26.401 117.431648 219
82 0.52834 26.417 117.502816 217.5
83 0.52858 26.429 117.556192 216
84 0.5275 26.375 117.316 215
85 0.52744 26.372 117.302656 213.5
86 0.5266 26.33 117.11584 212
87 0.52612 26.306 117.009088 210.5
88 0.52584 26.292 116.946816 209.5
89 0.52598 26.299 116.977952 208.5
90 0.52596 26.298 116.973504 207
212
Test-A alloy - Pouring Temperature: 800 °C
Average
(V) Contraction Contraction
Time (S) Force (lb) Force (N) Temperature ( °C )
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 729
1 0.02962 1.481 6.587488 716
2 0.01868 0.934 4.154432 680
3 0.0037 0.185 0.82288 614
4 0.00624 0.312 1.387776 593
5 0.01322 0.661 2.940128 581.5
6 0.04032 2.016 8.967168 574
7 0.10984 5.492 24.428416 568.5
8 0.29776 14.888 66.221824 566
9 0.63932 31.966 142.184768 564.5
10 0.70746 35.373 157.339104 563
11 0.65538 32.769 145.756512 561
12 0.65012 32.506 144.586688 559
13 0.65372 32.686 145.387328 557
14 0.65642 32.821 145.987808 554
15 0.65762 32.881 146.254688 550.5
16 0.65534 32.767 145.747616 546
17 0.65372 32.686 145.387328 540.5
18 0.65368 32.684 145.378432 533.5
19 0.65076 32.538 144.729024 523
20 0.65172 32.586 144.942528 506
21 0.65258 32.629 145.133792 488.5
22 0.65086 32.543 144.751264 472
213
23 0.64734 32.367 143.968416 457.5

24 0.64402 32.201 143.230048 444
25 0.64484 32.242 143.412416 432
26 0.63928 31.964 142.175872 420.5
27 0.64678 32.339 143.843872 410
28 0.64358 32.179 143.132192 400
29 0.641 32.05 142.5584 391
30 0.63946 31.973 142.215904 382.5
31 0.63634 31.817 141.522016 374
32 0.63566 31.783 141.370784 366.5
33 0.63422 31.711 141.050528 359
34 0.62876 31.438 139.836224 352
35 0.62728 31.364 139.507072 345.5
36 0.62566 31.283 139.146784 339
37 0.60844 30.422 135.317056 333
38 0.60686 30.343 134.965664 327
39 0.60716 30.358 135.032384 321.5
40 0.60818 30.409 135.259232 316
41 0.60804 30.402 135.228096 315
42 0.60808 30.404 135.236992 314
43 0.60816 30.408 135.254784 312
44 0.60808 30.404 135.236992 310
45 0.60814 30.407 135.250336 308.5
46 0.6084 30.42 135.30816 305
214
APPENDIX-D: EXPERIMENTAL DATA FOR AT72 ALLOY
Test1-AT72, Pouring Temperature - 675°C, Load

Header Size: 8
Version: 2
Sampling Rate: 1
Sample Count: 483
Culture Info: en-US
Sample Number
Date/TimeCHANNEL0 Events
1 08:10.6 -0.0077 DAQ Start
Contaction Contaction Temperatur
Time (S)
2 08:11.6 -0.0355 Force (V) Force (N) e °C
7 08:16.6 -0.0228 0 0 0 156
8 08:17.6 -0.0773 0 0.0363 8.07312 652.5
9 08:18.6 -0.0653 1 0.1471 32.71504 626
10 08:19.6 -0.0324 2 0.1698 37.76352 581
11 08:20.6 -0.0324 3 0.1857 41.29968 580.8
12 08:21.6 -0.035 4 0.2245 49.9288 557
13 08:22.6 -0.0114 5 0.2401 53.39824 545
14 08:23.6 -0.0265 6 0.2399 53.35376 530
15 08:24.6 -0.0494 7 0.2357 52.41968 518
16 08:25.6 -0.0284 8 0.2367 52.64208 495
17 08:26.6 -0.0463 9 0.2406 53.50944 478
18 08:27.6 -0.119 10 0.2496 55.51104 472
19 08:28.6 -0.0204 11 0.2565 57.0456 455
20 08:29.6 -0.0001 12 0.2614 58.13536 442
21 08:30.6 -0.0106 13 0.265 58.936 433
22 08:31.6 0.0065 14 0.2697 59.98128 425
23 08:32.6 0.0028 15 0.2763 61.44912 415
24 08:33.6 -0.007 16 0.2736 60.84864 405
25 08:34.6 -0.0084 17 0.2731 60.73744 398
26 08:35.6 -0.0555 18 0.2726 60.62624 389
27 08:36.6 0.0494 19 0.2702 60.09248 381
28 08:37.6 0.0829 20 0.2719 60.47056 377
215
AT72 Alloy @ 675 °C
29 08:38.6 -0.0233 21 0.266 59.1584 372

30 08:39.6 0.0411 22 0.2684 59.69216 365.5
31 08:40.6 0.0458 23 0.2638 58.66912 356
32 08:41.6 -0.0302 24 0.2631 58.51344 350
33 08:42.6 0.0387 25 0.2609 58.02416 344.5
34 08:43.6 -0.0895 26 0.256 56.9344 342
35 08:44.6 -0.0612 27 0.2509 55.80016 336
36 08:45.6 -0.0516 28 0.2501 55.62224 328
37 08:46.6 0.0807 29 0.245 54.488 326
38 08:47.6 -0.0211 30 0.2396 53.28704 323.5
39 08:48.6 -0.1054 31 0.2338 51.99712 319
40 08:49.6 -0.0575 32 0.2301 51.17424 314
41 08:50.6 -0.035 33 0.2299 51.12976 310
42 08:51.6 0.0006 34 0.2279 50.68496 307
43 08:52.6 0.045 35 0.2243 49.88432 303
44 08:53.6 -0.0721 36 0.2221 49.39504 297
45 08:54.6 0.0211 37 0.2208 49.10592 296
46 08:55.6 -0.0609 38 0.2189 48.68336 294
47 08:56.6 -0.0009 39 0.2177 48.41648 291
48 08:57.6 -0.0678 40 0.2172 48.30528 287
49 08:58.6 -0.0929 41 0.215 47.816 284
50 08:59.6 0.0372 42 0.2128 47.32672 279
51 09:00.6 -0.0868 43 0.2133 47.43792 276
52 09:01.6 0.0624 44 0.2103 46.77072 275
53 09:02.6 -0.0162 45 0.2103 46.77072 272
54 09:03.6 -0.0616 46 0.2074 46.12576 269
55 09:04.6 -0.0941 47 0.2074 46.12576 265
56 09:05.6 0.0719 48 0.2057 45.74768 262.5
57 09:06.6 -0.0197 49 0.2047 45.52528 256.5
58 09:07.6 -0.027 50 0.2059 45.79216 253.5
59 09:08.6 -0.0885 51 0.2057 45.74768 250.5
60 09:09.6 -0.1683 52 0.2042 45.41408 248
61 09:10.6 -0.0192 53 0.2025 45.036 245
62 09:11.6 0.0309 54 0.2023 44.99152 243
63 09:12.6 -0.006 55 0.2037 45.30288 241
64 09:13.6 0.0172 56 0.2025 45.036 238.5
65 09:14.6 0.0128 57 0.202 44.9248 236.5
66 09:15.6 -0.0128 58 0.202 44.9248 234
216
Test-2, AT72, Pouring Temperature, 710°C
Contraction Contraction Force Temperature
Time (S)
Force (V) (N) (°C)
0 0 0 147
0 0.0438 9.74112 684
1 0.1969 43.79056 677
2 0.1854 41.23296 656
3 0.2247 49.97328 634
4 0.2838 63.11712 614.5
5 0.3002 66.76448 596.5
6 0.3288 73.12512 587
7 0.3498 77.79552 582
8 0.3581 79.64144 572
9 0.3544 78.81856 570
10 0.3324 73.92576 567
11 0.3307 73.54768 565
12 0.3346 74.41504 562
13 0.3324 73.92576 558.5
14 0.3285 73.0584 554
15 0.3222 71.65728 550
16 0.3187 70.87888 544
17 0.3148 70.01152 532.5
18 0.3097 68.87728 504.5
19 0.3056 67.96544 487
20 0.2999 66.69776 473
21 0.2975 66.164 460
22 0.2931 65.18544 448
23 0.2924 65.02976 437
24 0.2882 64.09568 426.5
25 0.2851 63.40624 417
26 0.2821 62.73904 408
27 0.2809 62.47216 399.5
28 0.2819 62.69456 391.5
217
29 0.2794 62.13856 384

30 0.2753 61.22672 376.5
31 0.2755 61.2712 370
32 0.2721 60.51504 363.5
33 0.2706 60.18144 357.5
34 0.2689 59.80336 352
35 0.2667 59.31408 347
36 0.2643 58.78032 341.5
37 0.2633 58.55792 337
38 0.2599 57.80176 332.5
39 0.2597 57.75728 328
40 0.256 56.9344 323.5
41 0.254 56.4896 320
42 0.2514 55.91136 316
43 0.2472 54.97728 312.5
44 0.2467 54.86608 308.5
45 0.2457 54.64368 305.5
46 0.2443 54.33232 302
47 0.2406 53.50944 299
48 0.2404 53.46496 295.5
49 0.2396 53.28704 292.5
50 0.237 52.7088 289.5
51 0.2377 52.86448 287
52 0.2362 52.53088 284
53 0.2345 52.1528 281.5
54 0.2308 51.32992 279
55 0.2308 51.32992 276.5
56 0.2306 51.28544 274
57 0.2289 50.90736 272
58 0.2279 50.68496 269.5
59 0.2279 50.68496 267
60 0.2284 50.79616 265
61 0.2279 50.68496 263
62 0.2279 50.68496 261
63 0.2269 50.46256 259
64 0.2277 50.64048 257
65 0.2289 50.90736 255
66 0.2291 50.95184 253.5
218
Time (S)
Force (V) Force (N) (°C)
0 0 165
0 0.0243 5.40432 712
1 0.1471 32.71504 689
2 0.1686 37.49664 676
3 0.1703 37.87472 656
4 0.224 49.8176 632
5 0.266 59.1584 602
6 0.278 61.8272 592
7 0.2328 51.77472 589
8 0.213 47.3712 583.5
9 0.1896 42.16704 578
10 0.1708 37.98592 573
11 0.1547 34.40528 570
12 0.1395 31.0248 567
13 0.1339 29.77936 563
14 0.1271 28.26704 561
15 0.1239 27.55536 558
16 0.1215 27.0216 555
17 0.1205 26.7992 544
18 0.118 26.2432 532.5
19 0.1161 25.82064 504.5
20 0.1151 25.59824 487
21 0.1141 25.37584 473
22 0.1119 24.88656 460
23 0.108 24.0192 448
24 0.108 24.0192 437
25 0.109 24.2416 426.5
26 0.1061 23.59664 417
219
27 0.1056 23.48544 412

28 0.1056 23.48544 408
29 0.1017 22.61808 402
30 0.1029 22.88496 398
31 0.1034 22.99616 391.5
32 0.101 22.4624 388
33 0.1019 22.66256 382
34 0.1027 22.84048 380
35 0.1039 23.10736 377
36 0.1027 22.84048 375
37 0.1017 22.61808 371
38 0.1017 22.61808 368
39 0.1012 22.50688 364
40 0.1014 22.55136 361.5
41 0.1005 22.3512 358
42 0.0992 22.06208 356.5
43 0.0995 22.1288 355
44 0.0973 21.63952 353
45 0.0988 21.97312 349
46 0.0971 21.59504 346
47 0.0949 21.10576 343
48 0.0953 21.19472 340
49 0.0963 21.41712 338
50 0.0966 21.48384 335.5
51 0.0973 21.63952 330
52 0.0961 21.37264 328
53 0.0961 21.37264 325.5
54 0.0949 21.10576 323
55 0.0966 21.48384 319
56 0.0963 21.41712 316
57 0.0929 20.66096 312
58 0.0946 21.03904 310
59 0.0951 21.15024 307
60 0.0941 20.92784 302
220

Dissertation Hot Tearing Evaluation.

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dissertation Hot Tearing Evaluation.

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

STUDY OF HOT TEARING EVALUATION METHODS AND

QUANTIFICATION OF CONTRACTION FORCES IN DIE CASTING ALLOYS

Shri Nath Dubey, M.S.

Graduate Program in Industrial and Systems Engineering

The Ohio State University

Professor Jerald R. Brevick, Adviser

Professor Jose Castro

Shri Nath Dubey

propensity of casting alloys. Specifically, constrained rod casting, crack-ring, horizontal

Constrained Rod Casting-ECRC) for quantitative measurement in determining hot tearing

A transient thermal-mechanical FEA model was developed of enhanced constrained rod

as a good predictor of hot tearing characteristics since hot tearing is influenced by

thermal gradients and cooling rates in die casting alloys.

guidance, encouragement, and patience during my research and study. Conducting

excellent learning experience to me.

My sincere thanks go to my thesis committee members Professor Allen Yi and Professor

Finally, my deepest gratitude to my family. I am grateful to my parents who believed in

for their understanding and cooperation during Ph.D. research.

Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering August, 1994

Major Field: Industrial and Systems Engineering

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

1.1 HOT TEARING EVALUATION METHODS ......................................................... 7

1.2 SCOPE OF RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 9

1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................... 11

1.4 RESEARCH METHODOLGY ............................................................................... 13

1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION ...................................................... 16

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 17

2.1 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF HOT TEARING ........ 17

2.1.1 CONSTRAINED ROD CASTING (CRC) FOR EVALUATION OF Mg-Al

2.1.2 CRACK-RING FOR EVALUATION OF MG-9AL-XZn ALLOY ................ 25

2.1.4 T-SHAPE FOR EVALUATION OF A206 ALLOY ....................................... 29

2.1.5 RING MOLD FOR EVALUATION OF AA1050 VIA ACOUSTIC

2.1.6 RING MOLD FOR EVALUATION OF Al-Cu AND Mg ALLOYS .............. 33

2.2 NUMERICAL MODELING APPROACH AND SIMULATION ......................... 34

2.3 HOT TEARING PREDICTIVE MODELS ............................................................ 39

2.4 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 45

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................... 50

3.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF HOT TEARING .......................................................... 50

3.2 STAGES OF CRYSTAL GROWTH SOLDIFICATION PROCESS .................... 53

3.3 FORMATION OF DENDRITE MICROSTRUCTURES ...................................... 57

3.4 STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONS AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE ........ 58

3.5 STRAIN THEORIES .............................................................................................. 61

3.6 HOT TEARING CRITERIA ................................................................................... 65

3.7 HEAT TRANSFER IN CASTING SOLIDIFICATION ........................................ 71

3.7.1 FLOW OF HEAT INTERFACES WITH CHILL ............................................ 71

3.7.2 FLOW OF HEAT INTO CASTING........................................................... 72

3.7.3 HEAT RELEASED DURING SOLIDIFICATION ................................... 72

CHAPTER 4 - EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF DIE CASTING ALLOYS ................. 73

4.1 DESIGNING OF A BOOK MOLD ASSEMBLY .................................................. 74

4.1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ENHANCED CONTRAINED ROD CASTING ......... 79

4.2 EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF A206.2, TEST-A, A380, AND AT72 ALLOYS

4.3 INSTRUMENTATION OF EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUSES ........................ 92

4.4 EXPERIMENTAL MATRIX AND CHARATERTICS OF A206.2, TEST-A,

A380, AT72 ALLOYS .................................................................................................. 95

4.5 MELTING AND CASTING PROCESSES OF A206.2, TEST-A, A380, AND

AT72 ALLOYS ............................................................................................................. 98

4.5.1 FORCE MEASUREMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS OF A206.2 ALLOY

4.5.2 FORCE MEASUREMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS OF TEST-A .......... 111

4.5.3 FORCE MEASUREMENTS AND DATA ANALYSIS OF A380 ALLOY. 121

4.5.4 FORCE MEASUREMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS OF AT72 ALLOY .. 129

4.6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 136