See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321929829

AlSi5Mg0.3 Alloy for the Manufacture of Automotive Wheels

Article  in  International journal of metalcasting · December 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s40962-017-0191-2

CITATION READS

1 579

6 authors, including:

Mertcan Kaba Aysegul Donmez

Istanbul Technical University Dokuz Eylul University
4 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ahmet Faruk Kurban

2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AlSi5Mg0.3 Alloy for the Manufacture of Automotive Wheels View project

MSc. Thesis--- " Producing alumina coatings on magnesium alloys developed for high temperature applications " View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aysegul Donmez on 11 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AlSi5Mg0.3 ALLOY FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF AUTOMOTIVE WHEELS

M. Kaba, A. Donmez, A. Cukur, A. F. Kurban, and Y. Birol

Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey

H. E. Cubuklusu
CMS Jant ve Makina San. A.S., R&D Centre, Cigli, Izmir, Turkey

Copyright  2017 American Foundry Society

DOI 10.1007/s40962-017-0191-2

Abstract
The heat-treated AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy is the standard wheel
alloy as it offers the best compromise between fatigue
strength and elongation. Alloys with less than 7 wt% Si
may also be of interest for the manufacture of aluminium
wheels to limit Si poisoning that impairs grain refinement.
Hence, the potential of AlSi5Mg0.3 alloy was investigated
as it could offer superior mechanical properties owing to a
smaller grain structure. AlSi5Mg0.3 alloy does indeed
exhibit smaller grains but fails to offer higher mechanical
properties. AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy with a smaller dendritic
structure but coarser grains is superior. The higher fluidity
of the latter is believed to offer better feeding character-
istics, which in turn improves the soundness of the casting
and thus leads to superior structural quality and mechan-
ical properties. An overall industrial assessment favours
the standard Al7Si0.3 Mg alloy in the manufacture of light
alloy wheels.
Keywords: Al–Si casting alloys, automotive, grain
refinement, microstructure

Introduction Alloys employed for cast aluminium wheels are expected

Aluminium wheels improve vehicle handling and riding
comfort owing to the reduction in the unsprung mass which
in turn helps to reduce fuel consumption.1,2 Furthermore,
high thermal conductivity of aluminium allows heat to
dissipate faster and improves braking performance in
highly demanding driving conditions that lead to over-
heating-related brake failures. Hence, wheels constitute
nearly 15% of the average aluminium content in passenger
cars and light trucks with aluminium wheels on approxi-
mately 50% of the vehicles produced today.3,4
to exhibit good casting properties to limit susceptibility to
hot tearing and shrinkage, ability to withstand physical
impact, good corrosion and fatigue resistance.1 These
requirements have favoured the use of hypoeutectic Al–Si
primary alloys with 7–12% Si, up to 0.6 wt% Mg, low Fe
and minor impurities.1 The heat-treated AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy
has become the standard wheel alloy as it offers the best
compromise between fatigue strength and elongation.1,2
The manufacturing process involves precise melt treatment
practices such as degassing, filtration, grain refinement and
modification.8–11

Among the forged and cast varieties, the latter enjoy a high
styling versatility, dimensional accuracy, adequate
mechanical properties under static and dynamic loading
conditions.5 Cast aluminium wheels produced with the
low-pressure die casting (LPDC) process are also popular
in spite of inferior mechanical properties with respect to the
forged counterparts.6,7
M. Kaba, A. Donmez, A. Cukur, and A. F. Kurban are undergraduate
students.
Non-heat-treatable, near-eutectic AlSi11 Mg alloys with
11–12% Si were also used during 1980s, particularly in
Germany and Italy.1 Investigations carried out with dif-
ferent Si contents clearly demonstrated that an increase in
Si has an adverse effect on ductility, particularly at low
rates of solidification encountered in thick hubs.12,13 Yet,
alloys with 9–11% Si are still employed when castability is
critical.1,2 Alloys with less than 7 wt% Si may also be of
interest for the manufacture of aluminium wheels.3 The
grain size of Al–Si-based alloys increases with increasing

International Journal of Metalcasting

Si content above a critical level.14–18 Si reacts with Ti to
form Ti–Si binary phases and thus reduces both the number
and the efficiency of Al3Ti ve TiB2 particles, thereby
degrading the grain refinement efficiency of the master
alloy. The Ti–Si compounds that form on the surface of the
TiB2 particles impair their nucleation potency, while the
solute Ti is also tied up in Ti–Si compounds and is thus
removed from the melt, becoming totally ineffective. This
is referred to as Si poisoning and is essentially why Al–Ti-
B grain refiners fail to perform nearly as well with the
foundry alloys.
Hence, using Al–Si-Mg alloys with lower Si could offer
superior mechanical properties owing to a smaller grain
structure. The work reported in this contribution is the first
phase of a laboratory-scale research programme to explore
the potential of the AlSi5Mg0.3 alloy, with less Si than the
standard wheel alloy, for the manufacture of light alloy
wheels. If the results of this phase are judged to be
encouraging, the second phase that involves industrial-
scale production cycles will be implemented. Gravity
casting method, which used a specially designed mould to
duplicate the soldification conditions encountered in the
LPDC process, was employed. The melt treatment and
post-casting operations were copied exactly from the
industrial-scale manufacturing cycle to achieve a fair
assessment of the potential of this new alloy.
Experimental Procedure
The commercial AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy ingot was melted in
clay-bonded graphite crucibles at 745 C in an electric
resistance furnace. The Si content of the second batch was
diluted via the addition of commercial purity aluminium
into the parent alloy to obtain AlSi5Mg0.3 alloy melt
weighting approximately 4 kg. The Mg content of the
parent alloy thus reduced was compensated through the
addition of elemental Mg just before casting. The chemical
analysis of the two alloys was obtained with a commercial
optical emission spectrometer and is listed in Table 1.
The Al7Si0.3 Mg and Al5Si0.3 Mg alloys with as much as
0.1 wt% Ti were grain-refined by adding 0.01 wt% Ti
using Al-5Ti-1B master alloy (8 g), while the modification
process was performed using 0.02 wt% (5.3 g) Sr, both
master alloys in rod form. Commercial AlSr15 master alloy
rods were used to supply Sr. Degassing was performed by
Table 1. Chemical Composition of the AlSiMg Alloys Investigated in the Present Work (wt%) (Chemistry Before
Master Alloy Additions)
Si Fe Mg Ti
AlSi7Mg0.3 6.83 0.10 0.28 0.107
AlSi5Mg0.3 4.91 0.09 0.28 0.099
circulating nitrogen gas in the melt for 5 min at 0.5 bar
pressure before casting. The melt was skimmed and finally
poured into permanent moulds preheated to 340C (Fig-
ure 1). These moulds were designed so as to achieve
solidification conditions encountered in the hub section of
the aluminium wheels via very detailed analysis of cooling
curves recorded with the help of thermocouples embedded
in the mould. The melting and casting practices and the
post-casting operations employed were the same as those
used in industrial aluminium wheel production. A total of
12 casting samples were obtained for each alloy. Half of
these samples were solutionized at 540 C for 4 h, quen-
ched in water at 80 C, artificially aged and finally sub-
mitted to the powder coating and baking cycle along with
the cast aluminium wheels from routine production cam-
paigns. This final ageing treatment is copied exactly from
the industrial manufacturing practice and involved drying
at 130C for 13 min, powder coating at 180C for 24 min
and finally powder baking at 150C for 28 min. The T6
temper refers to the final product which has been submitted
to the solutionizing and ageing treatments as well as
powder coating and baking cycles.
Tensile test specimens were produced separately by pouring
the alloy melts into bottom fed permanent moulds (Figure 2).
Turbulence-free filling was achieved and defect-free cast-
ings were obtained. The samples were subjected to the same
T6 heat treatment with the standard bake cycle. They were
tested in tension in the fully processed state to facilitate a fair
comparison with the aluminium wheels from standard pro-
duction runs. A total of 20 tensile specimens for each set were
tested in accordance with DIN EN 10002-1 on a Zwick Roell
model tensile testing machine at ambient temperature with a
strain rate of 5 mm min-1. The hardness of the material was
tested under a load of 250 kg with INNOVATEST NEM-
ESIS 9000 model Brinell hardness tester. The impact energy
measurements were performed with an INSTRON model
Charpy testing unit. There are a number of methods to
measure the fluidity of foundry alloys.19,20 The fluidity test in
the present work was carried out with melt and mould tem-
peratures of 745 and 400 C, respectively, and under the
same conditions for each alloy by using the spiral mould
shown in Figure 3. The average of three tests was reported.
The secondary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS) was measured
using the linear intercept method described in Reference 21.
The samples for microstructural analysis were sectioned,
mounted and prepared with standard metallographic
Sr Mn B Cu Al
0.023 0.004 0.0016 0.003 Bal.
0.020 0.004 0.0017 0.001 Bal.
International Journal of Metalcasting
 Figure 1. The mould designed to achieve solidification conditions encountered in
the hub section of the aluminium wheels (a); after filling with molten alloy (b); and
the cast parts obtained after solidification (c).

practices. They were ground with SiC paper and polished
with diamond paste to a 0.25-micron finish. Their
microstructures were examined after etching with a 0.5%
HF solution using an Olympus GX41 model optical
microscope. The grain structures were checked after etch-
ing in a solution of iron (III) chloride hexahydrate
(Cl3FeH12O6). Some samples were anodized in Barker’s
solution, 5 ml HBF4 (48%) in 200 ml water, and were
examined under polarized light to facilitate precise grain
size measurements.
Results and Discussion
The as-cast microstructures of the AlSi5Mg0.3 and
AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys are illustrated in Figure 4. The eutectic
silicon plates have apparently transformed into small
silicon fibres thanks to an effective modification in both
alloys.13,22 Sr addition is credited for this structural
refinement since the cooling rate during solidification of
the hub region does not suffice to offer thermal modifica-
tion.11 It is evident from Figure 4 and SDAS measurements
from various sections of cast samples that the dendritic
structure in the standard wheel alloy, AlSi7Mg0.3, is
markedly smaller with respect to the potential wheel alloy,
AlSi5Mg0.3. The SDAS values were measured in the as-
cast state to be 74.3 ± 8 lm and 55.7 ±12 lm for
AlSi5Mg0.3 and AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys, respectively
(Table 2). Increase in the Si and in the overall alloy content
of aluminium melts are known to lead to a considerable
refinement of the dendritic structure.23–26 Evidently, the
volume fraction of the inter-dendritic eutectic phase is
relatively higher in the AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy as expected
owing to a higher Si content.

International Journal of Metalcasting

 Figure 2. The mould used in the present investigation to obtain tensile test samples
(a) and the tensile test samples obtained (b).

Figure 3. Spiral mould used to measure fluidity (a) and the pouring cup (b).

The grain structures of the Al5Si0.3 Mg and Al7Si0.3 Mg
alloys cast under exactly the same conditions with and
without the benefit of grain refinement are shown in Fig-
ure 5. The grain sizes before grain refinement were mea-
sured to be 983.6 ± 96 and 1432.8 ± 134 lm, for
AlSi5Mg0.3 and AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys, respectively, while
they were 481.5 ± 51 and 731.1 ± 96 lm after grain
refinement (Table 3). The grain size is apparently halved
upon grain refinement in both alloys implying a modest
refinement effect of the AlTi5B1 master alloy in the wheel
alloys. The grain size measurements in the heat-treated
state suggest that there has been no grain coarsening during
the solution heat treatment (Table 3). The favourable effect
of grain refinement is reflected also by the improvement in
mechanical properties of the grain-refined alloys with
respect to the unrefined counterparts (Table 4; Figure 6).
The tensile strength and the elongation values, in particu-
lar, have enjoyed a considerable increase upon grain
refinement. However, the underlying issue regarding grain
size measurements is that the Al5Si0.3Mg alloy, whether
grain refined or not, enjoys a relatively smaller grain
structure with respect to the Al7Si0.3Mg alloy, confirming
the impact of Si content of the alloy on grain refinement via
poisoning effect (Figure 5).17

International Journal of Metalcasting

 Figure 4. Microstructures of (a, c) AlSi5Mg0.3 and (b, d) AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys in the as-cast state.
Table 2. SDAS Measurements (lm)
As-cast Heat-treated (T6 ? PB)
AlSi5Mg0.3 74.3 ± 8 76.7 ± 11
AlSi7Mg0.3 55.7 ± 12 52.5 ± 8
The grain structures of the grain-refined alloys are illus-
trated also with the Barker micrographs in Figure 7. It is
striking to note the relatively coarser grains in spite of
relatively smaller dendrites in the AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy.
AlSi5Mg0.3 alloy, on the other hand, exhibits smaller
grains yet coarser dendrites. Since the two samples were
cast under exactly the same conditions with the same
cooling rates, this structural characteristic is attributed to
the Si content of the two alloys and thus to the constitu-
tional undercooling effect.
The Si fibres in the as-cast samples have transformed into
small, discrete eutectic silicon particles and have under-
gone some coarsening after the solution heat treatment in
both alloys.2 (Figure 8). Heat treatment results in the for-
mation of a uniform distribution of fine Mg2Si precipitates
across the solid solution matrix dendrites as suggested by
the hardness measurements (Table 4). These precipitates,
International Journal of Metalcasting
however, are too small to be directly resolved at optical
microscope magnifications and is evidenced only by the
increasing contrast across the matrix grains. The Fe-based
inter-metallic particles with plate-like morphologies that
are typical of aluminium foundry alloys and held partially
responsible for their poor mechanical properties are hardly
encountered in the two alloys investigated in the present
work (Figures 8e, f). This is attributed to the precise con-
trol of Fe content (\ 0.1 wt% Fe) in both AlSi7Mg0.3 and
AlSi5Mg0.3 alloys (Table 1).
The fluidity test was employed using the spiral flow casting
mould with a precise control of the mould temperature, the
melt temperature and the flow rate. The average fluidity
lengths for the AlSi5Mg0.3 and AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys were
estimated to be 194.0 ± 14.7 and 205.0 ± 10.5 cm,
respectively (Figure 9). Typical section micrographs
showing the distribution of shrinkage porosity in the
investigated alloys are given in Figure 10. The higher
fluidity of the AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy is credited for the much
less shrinkage porosity of this alloy.
Typical stress–strain curves obtained from tensile tests of
AlSi5Mg0.3 and AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys in the as-cast and heat-
treated states are illustrated in Figure 11. Yield (YS),
ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and tensile elongation (EL)
 Figure 5. Grain structures of (a, b) AlSi5Mg0.3 and (c, d) AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys before (a, c) and after (b,
d) grain refinement

Table 3. Grain Size Measurements (lm)

As-cast Heat-treated (T6 ? PB)

Unrefined Grain-refined Refined/unrefined (%)

AlSi5Mg0.3 983.6 ± 96 481.5 ± 51 49 472.7 ± 43

AlSi7Mg0.3 1432.8 ± 134 731.1 ± 96 51 763.8 ± 91

Table 4. Tensile Test Results, Hardness and Impact Energy Measurements of Samples Cast with and Without Grain
Refinement. Tensile Properties and Hardness Values that Exceed in the Required Range are Shown Bold

Alloy Process YS (MPa) UTS (MPa) A5 (%) Hardness (HB) Impact energy (J)

AlSi5Mg0.3 As-cast Unrefined 80.6 ± 2.9 128.3 ± 19.7 3.5 ± 1.8 – –

Grain-refined 85.0 ± 2.4 148.8 ± 21.3 3.7 ± 2.8 54 ± 1 4.22 ± 0.30
Heat-treated T6 186.1 – 5.2 231.9 – 4.4 2.4 – 0.6 78 ± 3 3.67 ± 0.40
AlSi7Mg0.3 As-cast Unrefined 81.7 ± 2.0 137.0 ± 24.9 3.8 ± 2.6 – –
Grain-refined 87.6 ± 0.9 156.8 ± 13.4 3.4 ± 2.3 53 ± 5 3.91 ± 0.30
Heat-treated T6 198.4 – 5.5 249.9 – 9.2 3.3 – 0.7 83 ± 3 4.16 ± 0.34
Required range Heat-treated T6 140.0–185.0 200.0–230.0 2.0–4.5 75–110 –

values as well as hardness and impact energy measure-
ments for these alloys are listed in Table 4 and are plotted
in Figures 12 and 13. The tensile properties of AlSi5Mg0.3
alloy are lower than those listed in the American Foundry
Society (AFS) Casting Alloy Data Search (CADS) data-
base that involved Static and Cyclic (Strain Life fatigue)
data for a low Si (4.1%) material poured using those same
ASTM permanent moulds. While this may imply some
methodological problems in the experiments, a fair com-
parison of the tensile test results shows that the
Al7Si0.3 Mg alloy offers relatively higher yield and ulti-
mate tensile strength as well as elongation values with

International Journal of Metalcasting

 200
180
a
160
140 AlSi5Mg0.3 AlSi7Mg0.3
YS (MPa)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
200
180
b AlSi5Mg0.3 AlSi7Mg0.3

160
140
UTS (MPa)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
9
8
c AlSi5Mg0.3 AlSi7Mg0.3

7
6
EL (%)

5
4
3
2 tures of grain-refined (a) AlSi5Mg0.3 and (b) AlSi7Mg0.3
1 alloys.
0
unrefined grain-refined unrefined grain-refined
Figure 6. (a) Yield (YS), (b) ultimate tensile strength
(UTS) and (c) elongation (EL) values of AlSi5Mg0.3 and
AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys before and after grain refinement.
respect to the Al5Si0.3Mg alloy in both as-cast and heat-
treated states.
Marked increases in the tensile strength values were
accompanied by reductions in the elongation values in the
heat-treated state, as typically encountered in age-hardened
aluminium alloys. The Charpy impact energy values are
quite similar in the as-cast and heat-treated states and fall in
the range of values reported in the literature for modified and
permanent mould cast A 356 alloy.27–29 The comparable
impact energies before and after the heat treatment suggest
that the structural improvement via the thermal modification
of Si particles overrides the effect of age hardening. The
comparable elongation and similar impact energy values of
the Al7Si0.3 Mg alloy in the heat-treated state imply higher
ductility, a very favourable feature under dynamic loading
conditions. The range of tensile properties and hardness
values required by different car manufacturers are also listed
Figure 7. Barker micrographs illustrating grain struc-
in Table 4. The yield and ultimate tensile strength values of
the standard AlSi7Mg0.3 wheel alloy exceed the minimum
requirements of all car manufacturers. It is thus fair to
conclude that the AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy stands out in terms of
mechanical properties.
Silicon, which contributes little to the strength of alu-
minium casting alloys alone, offers an effective level of
strengthening when combined with magnesium to form
Mg2Si. While the Si content of the two alloys is different,
this is not expected to cause any change in the strength-
ening potential as the strength/hardness properties are
dictated by the Mg, rather than the Si, content. After all, the
Si level in both alloys is far more than that required to
convert the entire Mg into the hardening phase, Mg2Si.
Silicon particle colonies and their relatively low resistance
to fracture are often blamed for the failure of the heavily
loaded sections of Al–Si-based castings. However,
AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy does not appear to suffer lower elonga-
tions in spite of a higher volume fraction of eutectic Si
particles which inevitably leads to a smaller inter-particle
spacing. Sr modification in addition to an adequate solution

International Journal of Metalcasting

 Figure 8. Microstructures of AlSi5Mg0.3 (a, c) and AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys (b, d–f) in the T6 heat-treated
state.
treatment is believed to have played a key role in
improving both the crack initiation and the crack propa-
gation resistance.11
The superior mechanical properties of the Al7Si0.3Mg
alloy can be explained by its higher Si content and the
decrease in the SDAS values.29 The favourable impact of
decreasing SDAS values on the mechanical properties of
aluminium foundry alloys is also well established.22,30–44
Al7Si0.3 Mg alloy which exhibits relatively coarser
grains yet smaller SDAS across the section of the castings
was found to offer higher yield and ultimate tensile
strength as well as tensile elongation values. It is thus
claimed that the scale of the dendritic structure, SDAS, is
a far more critical structural length parameter of the cast
alloys in dictating the mechanical properties. Contrasting
wrought aluminium alloys, the scale of the dendritic
structure is often of greater interest to the foundry people
owing to its impact on the mechanical properties of the
castings.33,45 SDAS is in perfect correlation with the
cooling rate which, however, fails to predict the grain size
on its own. The former invariably decreases with cooling
rate. The impact of the alloy composition on grain size
International Journal of Metalcasting
 Figure 9. Fluidity test results of grain-refined (a) AlSi5Mg0.3 and (b) AlSi7Mg0.3
alloys.

275

250

225 AlSi7Mg0.3; T6
AlSi5Mg0.3; T6
200
stress (MPa)

175 AlSi7Mg0.3; as-cast

150

125 AlSi5Mg0.3; as-cast

100

75

50

25

0
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5
strain (%)

Figure 11. Typical stress–strain curves obtained from

tensile tests of AlSi5Mg0.3 and AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys in the
as-cast and heat-treated states.

through constitutional undercooling is apparently more

critical.

Alloying elements such as Si and Cu are known to sig-

Figure 10. Typical section micrographs showing the
distribution of shrinkage porosity in (a) AlSi5Mg0.3 and
(b) AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys.
nificantly influence the fluidity of aluminium melts which
increased with the Si and Cu content. Elements modifying
the morphology of the eutectic phase (Sr) and grain refiners
and impurity elements such as Fe also impact fluidity. The
higher fluidity of the standard wheel alloy, AlSi7Mg0.3, is
believed to offer better feeding characteristics, which in
turn, improves the soundness of the casting and thus leads
to superior structural quality and mechanical properties. It
is thus fair to conclude that the higher fluidity of the
AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy, with much less shrinkage porosity, is
also responsible, at least in part, for the superior mechan-
ical properties of this alloy.

International Journal of Metalcasting

 300 300
a b AlSi5Mg0.3 AlSi7Mg0.3
250 AlSi5Mg0.3 AlSi7Mg0.3 250

200

UTS (MPa)
200
YS (MPa)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
as-cast T6 as-cast T6 as-cast T6 as-cast T6
8 100
7
c AlSi5Mg0.3 d AlSi5Mg0.3 AlSi7Mg0.3
AlSi7Mg0.3
80
6

hardness (HB)
5
A5 (%)

60
4
EL

3 40

2
20
1

0 0
as-cast T6 as-cast T6 as-cast T6 as-cast T6

Figure 12. (a) Yield (YS) and (b) ultimate tensile strength (UTS), (c) elongation (EL) and (d) hardness
values of AlSi5Mg0.3 and AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys in the as-cast and heat-treated states. The minimum
required for the T6 properties are marked on these graphs.

5 grains in the former are attributed to its lower Si

AlSi5Mg0.3 AlSi7Mg0.3
content which in turn helps to reduce the Si
4 poisoning effect during grain refinement.
impact energy (J)

• While the grain size of the Al5Si0.3 Mg alloy is

3 smaller than the Al7Si0.3 Mg alloy, the mechan-
2 superior.
1
0
as-cast T6 as-cast
Figure 13. Impact energy values of AlSi5Mg0.3 and
AlSi7Mg0.3 alloys in the as-cast and heat-treated states.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the present
investigation:
• AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy has a relatively smaller den-
dritic structure than the AlSi5Mg0.3 alloy. This
decrease in SDAS is attributed to the higher level
of solute content during the solidification of the
higher silicon containing alloy (%7 Si).
• AlSi5Mg0.3 alloy has a relatively smaller grain
structure than the AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy. The smaller
ical properties of the Al7Si0.3 Mg alloy are
• The AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy offers higher fluidity than
the AlSi5Mg0.3 alloy. The higher fluidity of the
standard wheel alloy is believed to offer better
feeding characteristics, which in turn improve the
T6 soundness of the casting.
• The scale of the dendritic structure combined with
improved soundness overrides the effect of the
grain structure on mechanical properties.
• The potential Al5Si0.3 Mg alloy does not offer
any specific advantages over the Al7Si0.3 Mg
alloy in terms of physical and mechanical prop-
erties. An industrial assessment implies that it is
more appropriate to use the standard
Al7Si0.3 Mg alloy in the manufacture of light
alloy wheels.
Acknowledgement
It is a pleasure to thank Ugur Aybarc and Caner
KALENDER for experimental work. The present work
was supported by TUBITAK.

International Journal of Metalcasting

REFERENCES
1. Applications—Chassis & Suspension—Wheels—The
aluminium automotive manual: https://european-alumin
ium.eu/media/1563/aam-applications-chassis-suspension
-3-wheels.pdf
2. A. Manente, G. Timelli, Optimizing the heat treatment
process of cast aluminium alloys, in Recent Trends in
Processing and Degradation of Aluminium Alloys, ed.
by Z. Ahmad (Intech, Rijeka, 2011)
3. M. Tocci, A. Pola, G.M. La Vecchia, M. Modigell,
Procedia Eng. 109, 303–311 (2015)
4. European Aluminium Association, The Automotive
Manual (2011). https://www.european-aluminium.eu/
media/1514/1-introduction_2015.pdf
5. https://www.engineeringclicks.com/aluminium-car-wheels/
6. W. Zhao, L. Zhang, Z. Wang, H. Yan, Adv. Mater.
Res. 189–193, 3862–3865 (2011)
7. B. Zhang, S.L. Cockcroft, D.M. Maijer, J.D. Zhu, A.B.
Phillion, JOM 57, 36–43 (2005)
8. G.K. Sigworth, Int. J. Metalcast. 5, 7–22 (2011)
9. G.K. Sigworth, Int. J. Metalcast. 8, 7–20 (2014)
10. G.K. Sigworth, T.A. Kuhn, Int. J. Metalcast. 1, 31–40
(2007)
11. G.K. Sigworth, Int. J. Metalcast. 2, 19–40 (2008)
12. US Patent Application No. US 4995917 A, Manufac-
turing process for die-cast light-metal wheels of pas-
senger cars (1991)
13. European Patent Application No. EP 0021227 A2
Aluminium wheel for vehicles (1981)
14. A.M. Samuel, H.W. Doty, S. Valtierre et al., Int.
J. Metalcast. 11, 305–320 (2017)
15. Y. Birol, Mater. Sci. Technol. 28, 385–389 (2012)
16. Y. Birol, Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 26, 22–27 (2013)
17. D. Qiu, J.A. Taylor, M.-X. Zhang, P.M. Kelly, Acta
Mater. 55, 1447–1456 (2007)
18. S.A. Kori, V. Auradi, B.S. Murty, M. Chakraborty,
Mater. Forum 29, 387–393 (2005)
19. M. Sabatino, L. Arnberg, S. Brusethaug, D. Apelian,
Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 19, 64 (2006)
20. L.F. Porter, P.C. Rosenthal, Trans. Am. Foundrym.
Soc. 60, 725–735 (1952)
21. E. Vandersluis, C. Ravindran, Metallogr. Microstruct.
Anal. 6, 89–94 (2017)
22. O. El Sabei Elsebaie, A.M. Samuel, F.H. Samuel, J.
Mater. Sci. 46, 3027–3045 (2011)
23. Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys—Sayfa 523—Goo-
gle Kitaplar Sonucu
International Journal of Metalcasting
View publication stats
24. P.N. Anyalebechi, Effects of alloying elements and
solidification conditions on secondary dendrite arm
spacing in aluminium alloys, in EPD Congress TMS
(2004)
25. M. Easton, C. Davidson, D. St John, Metall. Mater.
Trans. 41A, 1528–1538 (2010)
26. M. Djurdjevic, J. Pavlovic, G. Byczynski, Pract.
Metallogr. 46, 97–114 (2009)
27. S. Shivkumar, L. Wang, C. Keller, J. Mater. Eng.
Perform. 3, 83–90 (1994)
28. M. Merlin, G. Timelli, F. Bonollo, G.L. Garagnani, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 209, 1060–1073 (2009)
29. M. Amne Elahi, S.G. Shabestari, Trans. Nonferr. Met.
Soc. China 26, 956–965 (2016)
30. G.E. Totten, D.S. MacKenzie (eds.), Handbook of
Aluminum: Physical Metallurgy and Processes, vol. 1
(Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 2003)
31. J. Campbell, Castings, the New Metallurgy of Cast
Metals, 2nd edn. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2003)
32. P.R. Goulart, W.R. Osorio, J.E. Spinelli, A. Garcia,
Mater. Manuf. Process. 22, 328–332 (2007)
33. N.L.M. Veldman, A.K. Dahle, D.H. Stjohn, L. Arn-
berg, Metall. Mater. Trans. 32A, 147–155 (2001)
34. S. Gowri, F.H. Samuel, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 25A,
437–448 (1994)
35. Q.G. Wang, C.J. Davidson, J. Mater. Sci. 36, 739–750
(2001)
36. J. Campbell, The New Metallurgy of Cast Metals,
Castings, 2nd edn. (Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann,
Amsterdam, 2003)
37. F. Grosselle, G. Timelli, F. Bonollo, Mater. Sci. Eng.
A 527, 3536 (2010)
38. S. Seifeddine, E. Sjölander, T. Bogdanoff, Mater. Sci.
Appl. 4, 171 (2013)
39. L.A. Dobrzanski, R. Maniara, J. Sokolowski, W.
Kasprzak, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 191, 317 (2007)
40. L. Backerud, Solidification Characteristics of Alu-
minium Alloys. AFS Skanaluminium 2, 1–75 (1991)
41. K. Rhadhakrishna, S. Seshan, Cast Met. 2, 34–38
(1989)
42. M.C. Flemings, T.Z. Kattamis, B.P. Bardes, AFS
Trans. 99(1991), 501–506 (1991)
43. Q.G. Wang, Metall. Mater. Trans. 34A, 2887–2899
(2003)
44. Q.G. Wang, C.H. Caceres, Mater. Sci. Eng. A A241,
72–82 (1998)
45. M.C. Flemings, Solidification processing, vol. 341
(McGraw Hill, New York, 1974)