Advertisement

Shape Casting pp 167-175 | Cite as

Characterization of the Effect of Sr and Ti on Liquid Quality in Al8Si3Cu

  • Muhammet UludağEmail author
  • Derya Dispinar
  • Murat Tiryakioğlu
Conference paper
Part of the The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series book series (MMMS)

Abstract

Al8Si3Cu alloy was studied to investigate the effect of casting conditions on melt quality of the molten metal. While Sr and Ti master alloys were used as additional parameters, holding time was performed for effect of held liquid. Experimental study was tried before and after degassing. The reduced pressure test machine was used to produce samples which are five samples for each parameter. Samples were prepared by metallographic methods to be analyzed with via digital image processing. Pores on the surface of the samples were measured in number density and distribution of them was examined statistically. Results showed that while Sr addition and holding time increased casting defects by increasing porosity, degassing decreased the number density of defects, as expected. Therefore, it is a vital result that degassing process must be applied to every casting. In addition, Ti addition was found to have a slight positive effect to reduce porosity, but it was almost negligible when compared to that of degassing process.

Keywords

Al8si3cu alloy Sr modification Grain refinement Liquid quality 

References

  1. 1.
    Campbell J (2003) Castings. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell J (2006) Entrainment defects. Mater Sci Technol 22(2):127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Knott J (2006) Commentaries on’Entrainment defects’ by J. Campbell. Mater Sci Technol 22(8):999–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mi J et al (2003) Entrained oxide films in TiAl castings. Intermetallics 11(4):377–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell J (2015) Complete casting handbook: metal casting processes, metallurgy, techniques and design. Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dispinar D, Campbell J (2007) Effect of casting conditions on aluminium metal quality. J Mater Process Technol 182(1–3):405–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dispinar D, Kvithyld A, Nordmark A (2011) Quality assesment of recycled aluminium. In: Light metals 2011. Springer, pp 731–735Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drouzy M, Jacob S, Richard M (1980) Interpretation of tensile results by means of quality index and probable yield strength-application to Al-Si7 Mg foundry alloys-France. Int Cast Met J 5(2):43–50Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gruzleski JE, Closset BM (1990) The treatment of liquid aluminum-silicon alloys. American Foundrymen’s Society, IncorporatedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris R, Lipson S, Rosenthal H (1956) Tensile properties of aluminum–silicon magnesium alloys and the effect of sodium modification. AFS Trans 64:470–481Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shivkumar S et al (1989) An experimental study to optimize the heat treatment of A356 alloy. AFS Trans 97:791–810Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fang Q, Granger D (1989) Porosity formation in modified and unmodified A356 alloy castings. AFS Trans 97(10):989–1000Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brosnan M, Shivkumar S (1996) Elevated-temperature tensile properties and fracture behavior of A 356 castings. American Foundrymen’s Society, Inc (USA), pp 727–737Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gundlach R et al (1994) Thermal fatigue resistance of hypoeutectic aluminum-silicon casting alloys (94–141). Trans Am Foundrymen’s Soc 102:205–224Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Campbell J, Tiryakioğlu M (2010) Review of effect of P and Sr on modification and porosity development in Al–Si alloys. Mater Sci Technol 26(3):262–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iwahori H et al (1990) Occurring behaviour of porosity and feeding capabilities of sodium and strontium-modified Al–Si alloys. AFS Trans 94:167–173Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schaffer PL, Dahle AK (2005) Settling behaviour of different grain refiners in aluminium. Mater Sci Eng, A 413:373–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anyalebechi P (2013) Hydrogen-induced gas porosity formation in Al-4.5 wt% Cu-1.4 wt% Mg alloy. J Mater Sci 48(15): 5342–5353Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee J-M et al (2003) Effects of melt treatments on microstructures and mechanical properties of A357 alloy. J Korea Foundry Soc 23(2):69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haberl K et al (2009) Characterization of the melt quality and impurity content of an LM25 alloy. Metall Mater Trans B 40(6):812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Liu S-G et al (2015) Characteristics of mold filling and entrainment of oxide film in low pressure casting of A356 alloy. Mater Sci Eng, A 626:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eskin D et al (2015) Ultrasonic degassing of aluminium alloys: basic studies and practical implementation. Mater Sci Technol 31(1):79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dispinar D, Campbell J (2011) Porosity, hydrogen and bifilm content in Al alloy castings. Mater Sci Eng A 528(10):3860–3865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dispinar D, Campbell J (2013) Reduced pressure test (RPT) for bifilm assessment. In: Shape casting: 5th international symposium 2014. WileyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muhammet Uludağ
    • 1
    Email author
  • Derya Dispinar
    • 2
  • Murat Tiryakioğlu
    • 3
  1. 1.Metallurgical and Materials EngineeringBursa Technical UniversityBursaTurkey
  2. 2.Metallurgical and Materials EngineeringIstanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.University of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations