SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES

2001-01-0406

Mechanical Properties of High Performance Aluminum Castings

Alan P. Druschitz, Thomas E. Prucha, Adam E. Kopper and Thomas A. Chadwick
INTERMET Corp.

Reprinted From: Automotive Casting Processes and Materials (SP1603)

SAE 2001 World Congress Detroit, Michigan March 5-8, 2001

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition, however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale. SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected books are abstracted and indexed in the Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISSN 0148-7191 Copyright 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group. Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

2001-01-0406

Mechanical Properties of High Performance Aluminum Castings

Alan P. Druschitz, Thomas E. Prucha, Adam E. Kopper and Thomas A. Chadwick
INTERMET Corp.

Copyright 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT Squeeze casting and semi-solid metal forming produce aluminum castings with exceptional properties. This paper compares the mechanical properties and microstructures of a production component processed by a variety of casting processes and heat treatments. Note, in all cases, the current insert tool used for squeeze casting was adapted to be utilized in the various semi-solid metal forming processes. The results showed that semi-solid metal forming produced consistently better mechanical properties compared to squeeze casting. Defects, primarily oxide films, were determined to be responsible for the lower and less consistent properties of the squeeze cast material. INTRODUCTION INTERMET Corporation currently produces a clutch spider for Arctic Cat using the squeeze casting process and secondary 356 aluminum, Figure 1. To determine the effect of material composition, casting process and heat treatment on casting quality and mechanical properties, castings were produced by the production squeeze casting process at the INTERMET Minneapolis Plant, the new rheocasting process at UBE in Japan and the thixocasting process at Formcast. The castings were then heat treated using current and recommended vendor heat treatments. The squeeze casting process is a die casting process that uses 100% liquid metal and relatively slow shot velocities. At the appropriate time during solidification, high pressure is applied to squeeze the last liquid metal into any remaining porosity. Thus, a more dense casting is produced compared to traditional die casting. In rheocasting, liquid metal is cooled in a controlled manner until a special microstructure is formed. When the metal is approximately 50% solid, it is injected into the casting cavity. This semi-solid material has unique

Figure 1 - Photograph of Production Arctic Cat Clutch Spider Casting.

flow characteristics and low heat content. The resulting castings have little or no porosity and die life is improved compared to traditional die and squeeze casting. The thixocasting process uses a specially solidified solid billet as a starting material. The solid billet is carefully heated until it is approximately 50% liquid and then injected into the casting cavity. As in rheocasting, the unique flow characteristics and low heat content of the semi-solid metal produce castings that have little or no porosity and improved die life compared to traditional die and squeeze casting. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS Arctic Cat clutch spider castings were produced by the current production squeeze casting process at the INTERMET Minneapolis Plant, the new UBE rheocasting process at UBE in Japan and the traditional semi-solid metal forming (thixocasting) process at Formcast. The castings were then heat treated using a T5 and the current T6 heat treatments plus recommended vendor T6 heat treatments, Table 1. Both vendor recommended

T6 heat treatments specified a reduced aging time compared to the INTERMET current T6. UBEs recommended T6 heat treatment specified short solution and aging times. The INTERMET current T6 solution cycle was developed to avoid any problems with incipient melting with composition in localized areas due to secondary 356 alloy and squeeze intensification pressure. The aging time and temperature were also developed to maximize yield strength for the intended part service duty cycle. It was decided to try other heat treatments as a comparison.

constant strain rate (0.01 in/in/min) and the digitized stress-strain data saved. RESULTS & DISCUSSION CHEMICAL COMPOSITION The chemical compositions were representative of secondary 356 for the squeeze castings, A356 for the UBE rheocastings and A357 for the Formcast semi-solid metal castings, Table 2. Table 2 - Chemical Composition of Castings.

Table 1 - Heat Treating Conditions. Identification T5 T5 pre-age Condition water quench out of die followed by 11 hours at 333 F water quench out of die followed by 170 hours at room temperature and then 11 hours at 333 F 8 hours at 930 F then quench in water/polymer mix followed by 11 hours at 330F 8 hours at 1000 F then quench in water/polymer mix followed by 6 hours at 338 F 3.7 hours at 995 F then quench in water/polymer mix followed by 2.5 hours at 320 F Si Mg Fe Mn Cu Zn Ti Sr Squeeze Casting 7.0 0.41 0.52 0.27 0.23 0.19 0.15 <0.001 Formcast thixocasting 7.2 0.47 0.09 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.015 UBE rheocasting 7.2 0.36 0.11 0.004 0.01 0.01 0.13 <0.001

current T6 Formcast T6 UBE T6

The chemical composition of the castings was analyzed using a Shimadzu arc-spark spectrometer. The spectrometer specimens were prepared by remelting pieces of the castings and pouring into a standard spectrometer sample mold. The hardness of the castings was determined by taking standard Brinell hardness measurements (500 kg load, 10 mm steel ball) at six locations around the hub of the castings and averaging. The microstructure of the castings was examined by cutting samples from the hub section (thick section). The samples were prepared using standard metallographic techniques and examined in the aspolished condition. The degree of silicon modification was visually estimated using the AFS Modification Wall Chart. Tensile properties were evaluated from specimens sectioned from the castings at the in-gate and opposite the in-gate. Two specimens were cut from each of four castings (eight tensile bars total). The tensile specimens were ASTM standard sub-size bars (0.250 diameter, 1 gage length). Tensile testing was performed on an MTS servohydraulic testing machine in accordance to ASTM Standard E-8. To aid in future design programs, one tensile specimen from each casting was tested at a

MICROSTRUCTURE The microstructure of the castings reflected both chemical composition and processing history, Table 3 and Appendices 1-3. The primary difference between squeeze casting and semisolid is the dendritic nature of the squeeze cast material and the non-dendritic nature of the semi-solid castings. The Formcast material showed the classic semi-solid microstructure, which consisted of well-rounded primary aluminum particles surrounded by aluminum-silicon eutectic and entrapped aluminum-silicon eutectic within the primary aluminum. The UBE material was similar but no entrapped aluminum-silicon eutectic was apparent within the primary aluminum. The silicon was well modified in the Formcast material, non-uniformly modified in the UBE material and poorly modified in the squeeze cast material. Only the castings produced by Formcast were chemically modified using strontium. The castings produced by the squeeze casting process showed regions of eutectic pooling. Eutectic pooling is caused when auxiliary densification is applied and remaining eutectic liquid is forced into low density areas that are surrounded by material that has already solidified. Thus, large defects (porosity) are eliminated and mechanical properties are significantly improved. After a T6 heat treatment, the squeeze cast material had non-uniform silicon morphology, whereas, the Formcast and UBE materials had well spheroidized silicon. Apparently, the elongated, but thin, silicon particles produced by the UBE process broke down rapidly during solution treatment.

Table 3 - Microstructure of Castings.

Heat Treatment Casting Process Squeeze cast Microstructure Fine dendritic microstructure, poor modification (AFS level 2), numerous areas of eutectic pooling, particles of various intermetallic compounds Classic semi-solid with fine entrapped eutectic phase within the primary aluminum, well modified (AFS level 5) Semi-solid with no entrapped eutectic, non-uniform modification (AFS level 2-4) Non-uniform silicon morphology (incompletely spheroidized) Well spheroidized silicon Well spheroidized silicon

Table 5 - Average Tensile Properties of Castings (+ values are 1 standard deviation).

Heat Treatment Casting Process Squeeze cast Formcast thixocasting UBE rheocasting T5 Pre-age UBE Rheocasting Squeeze cast Current T6 Formcast thixocasting UBE rheocasting Formcast T6 Formcast thixocasting UBE rheocasting Ultimate Tensile Strength, psi na* Yield Strength, psi na* Elongation, % na*

T5

T5

Formcast thixocasting

42,229 + 644 38,502 + 489

31,161 + 846 27,221 + 399

7.9 + 2.0 6.7 + 1.6

UBE rheocasting Squeeze cast Current T6 Formcast thixocasting UBE rheocasting

41,718 + 273 43,662 + 6,551 44,370 + 494 42,926 + 729

30,578 + 627 38,619 + 883 37,772 + 803 34,513 + 1,006

7.7 + 0.4 4.2 + 3.4 9.6 + 1.3 12.3 + 1.1

44,426 + 643 44,569 + 3,272**

38,419 + 665 31,977 + 682**

8.9 + 0.8 15.6 + 5.5**

HARDNESS - The hardness of the castings reflected the effects of both chemical composition and microstructure, Table 4. The higher level of impurities (Fe, Mn, Cu, etc.) and high Mg content in the B356 aluminum alloy resulted in higher average hardness for a fixed heat treatment. The UBE material had the lowest hardness due to low impurity content and low Mg content. Table 4 - Average Hardnesses of Castings.
Heat Treatment T5 T5 pre-age Current T6 Formcast T6 UBE T6 Casting Process Squeeze cast Formcast thixocasting UBE rheocasting UBE rheocasting Squeeze cast Formcast thixocasting UBE rheocasting Formcast thixocasting UBE rheocasting Hardness, BHN 91.8 87.5 80.6 87.1 103.8 92.6 89.9 96.4 87.6

UBE T6

* **

not available one sample with defect

Figure 2 - Comparison of tensile data for INTERMET current T6 heat treatment.

TENSILE PROPERTIES The tensile properties correlated well with hardness and showed the effects of defects, Table 5. The data for the current T6 heat treatment clearly shows the superior consistency of the semi-solid material. Figure 2.

The inconsistency in the mechanical properties of the squeeze cast material was determined to be due to oxide film type inclusions, Figure 3, which may be caused by turbulence during mold filling.

Figure 3 - Oxide film type inclusion in a squeeze casting.

One UBE casting had an oxide film type inclusion, which dramatically reduced mechanical properties. If this sample was discounted, the changes in the standard deviation values for ultimate tensile strength and elongation were significant (UTS 45,686 + 914 ksi, YS 31,995 + 735 ksi, elongation 17.5 + 1.5 %). Defects had little or no effect on yield strength. The semi-sold material heat treated according to the Formcast specification produced no significant difference compared to the INTERMET current T6 heat treatment. However, the semi-solid material heat treated according to the UBE specification produced lower, but adequate, yield strength and significantly higher elongation compared to the INTERMET current T6 heat treatment. CONCLUSION 1. Castings produced by semi-solid metal forming processes had a better combination of strength and ductility and more consistent tensile properties than castings produced by the squeeze casting process. 2. Given the same heat treatment, castings produced by the squeeze casting process had higher hardness than castings produced by semi-solid metal forming. This was due to the differences in chemical composition and microstructure.

Appendix 1 - Microstructures of Castings Produced by INTERMET Minneapolis Plant.

Squeeze casting (secondary 356 alloy, T5 heat treatment) showing eutectic pooling and poor modification.

Squeeze casting (secondary 356 alloy, current T6 heat treatment) showing eutectic pooling and nonuniform silicon morphology.

Appendix 2 - Microstructures of Castings Produced by Formcast.

Thixocasting (A357 alloy, T5 heat treatment) showing classic semi-solid structure with fine eutectic phase within the primary aluminum and well-modified silicon.

Thixocasting (A357 alloy, current T6 heat treatment) showing classic semi-solid structure and well spheroidized silicon.

Thixocasting (A357 alloy, Formcast T6 heat treatment) showing classic semi-solid structure and well spheroidized silicon.

Appendix 3 - Microstructures of Castings Produced by UBE.

Rheocasting (A356 alloy, T5 heat treatment) showing semi-solid structure and non-uniform silicon modification.

Rheocasting (A356 alloy, current T6 heat treatment) showing semi-solid structure and well spheroidized silicon.

Rheocasting (A356 alloy, UBE T6 heat treatment) showing semi-solid structure and well spheroidized silicon.