Casting Lab

Jake TeSelle
Nathan Mcdonald
Jarek Jensen
Michael Lundstrom



Submitted to: Dr. John
ETME 216 Section 3
Aluminum Mold Casting
2/12/2014







Introduction:

Purpose
The purpose of this lab was to learn introductory mold making and rudimentary casting
techniques in order to cast from molten aluminium a simple rectangular block in a silica based
sand mold. Also, by means of calculations, to determine theoretical values and compare them
to experimentally determined values. The mold is to be constructed from a simple silica sand
contained within an aluminum frame. Learning proper safety techniques and practices when
handling molten aluminium are also objectives of this lab. Finally, observing visual defects in
cast parts, how to observe them, as well as how to compensate for them to create high quality
parts. Intentionally part poor mold design has been utilized to observe defects on a macroscopic
scale. These defects and their causes, as well as ways to potentially prevent them are
discussed in greater detail below.
Scope
The scope of the experiment was limited to the study of aluminium and its material
properties. No other metal was used. The casting techniques used were sand casting. All
other casting techniques were not applicable to this lab; such as die or permanent mold casting.
In industry, other materials are used in the manufacture of molds such as styrofoam, however,
in this lab only a red silica based sand was used to construct the mold. Observing the factors of
mold erosion, turbulent flow, porosity, part shrinkage, and various defects are all purposes of
this lab. The study was limited to the part and its properties. Material characteristics, mold
material, cooling rate, and hardness were not studied in the lab.
Problem
The problem this lab is designed to demonstrate is the inherent nature of defects in the
casting process. These problems are understood further through visual examination of the
finished part. The process used to produce the part is one inherently rife with problems. Such a
process would never be used industrially. Turbulent flow, which causes mold erosion, and
porosity, which causes weak spots in a part, are both common issues and are unavoidable in
production, however, they can be minimized. Other defects include mold fill lines which is
caused by unsmooth filling of the mold. This reveals horizontal lines where the flow velocity may
have slowed, forming the line. You can also have depressions in the surface of the part cause
by un-uniform shrinkage For this lab, all defects were maximized to give an accurate
representation of their nature. Getting to see these defects maximized let us see the potential
problems they all can cause. After Seeing these defects we will be able to account for these
defects in future casting.

Test and Evaluation:

Apparatus-
Cope
Drag
Aluminum Pattern (permanent)
Sand
Wire Brush
Dustpan
Broom
2 12 Scales
Dial Calipers
Aluminium Pipe
Steel Rod (testing aluminum temperature)
Molten Aluminium
Pot Furnace
Pouring Ladle
Metal Sieve
Wood sand compactor
Safety Glasses
Metal Scoops
Leather Welding Gloves
Metal Straight Edge Scraper
Talc Powder
Metal Tongs
Metal Spiked Hammer
Water Quench Tank
Phone Camera
Sharpie marker


Procedure:
The floor was first swept clean to provide a clean work surface. A three section
aluminum mold was then disassembled from it original structure so we could scrub it with wire
brushes to remove any stray particles or hardened sand that would cause defects in the mold.
Careful attention was given to the surface of the mold that would be creating the cavity. Then
the mold was assembled by putting the top piece, with pegs up, upside down. The center piece
was slid onto this such that the part creating the cavity was facing down to allow for easier
removal. The third section was then lowered onto the pegs. This was done so that when
removing the center section of the mold from the sand, the part creating the cavity was coming
up for easier removal. Next, the the height, length, and width of the mold dimensions were
measured from the bottom of the draft angle to determine the cavity dimensions, by using a dial
caliper and were recorded for use in later calculation (see below). Furthermore, the location of
the square on the side of the mold was marked by putting the rulers vertically straight towards
one of the side of the square box then had placed another ruler horizontally touching the other
ruler and marked the spot with a sharpie marker. This happened for each side of the mold so
that the locations for both vent and fill holes could be determined. Next, a screen was placed on
the top piece of the mold so that sand could be sifted of any and all particulates. The Sand was
now sifted through a screen to create a layer of sand at the base that was ultra fine and with no
air pockets (see Picture 6 in Attachments). Then the sand was compressed with hands to get
precisely on the mold of the block to eliminate air pockets. After sufficient sand had been filtered
and hand compacted, larger quantities of sand were added. This was then compacted by use
of a large wooden tool (see picture 7 in Attachments). Sand was then added in order to
completely fill the cavity and beaten together to create a very stiff sand mold. A metal tool was
then used to scrap the extra sand off the top surface of the mold and when completed, then the
mold was flipped and the process repeated on the bottom piece of the mold. The red sand was
again sifted through a screen mesh, compacted by hand onto the mold, and then filled and
compacted using the wooden tool. Using the sharpie marks and a flat metal sheet, it was
possible to use the the ruler to draw a straight line in the sand. This was done a total of four
times. The measurements of the mold were now used to locate the mold cavity within the sand
so that a sprue and vent hole could be created (see picture 8 in Attachments). A hollow
aluminium pipe was pressed into the sand by hand until it hit the mold, this was used to create a
sprue and vent for the mold cavity by gently rotating it and removing a column of sand (see
picture 11 in Attachments). Using a ruler, the sprue hole edges were chamfered to allow for
much easier pouring of the molten aluminium and its dimensions were recorded for use in a
later calculation for mold fill time.
Aluminium pellets and scraps were then superheated far beyond their melting point (see
picture 12 in Attachments). This process took approximately 20 minutes. A steel rod was used
to dip into the molten of aluminum to check the temperature. Once the aluminum stuck to the
steel rod it was a glowing red, the metal was determined to be superheated enough to be
poured into the cavity of the sand mold. Three group members wearing safety goggles and
welding gloves now positioned the mold such that it would be closest to the superheated metal.
The Molten Aluminum was then poured into the pouring ladle held by a group member (see
picture 9 in Attachments). It was then poured into the mold with filling time being recorded by a
cellphone stopwatch application(see picture 5 in Attachments). Once the molten Aluminum filled
the mold by popping out of the vent hole, the pouring and stopwatch were stopped and the mold
was immediately put outside to cool for approximately 10 minutes. After cooling the cast part
was dug and pulled from the sand mold with metal tongs and a metal spike hammer (see picture
2 in Attachments). The metal part was then put into a water bath quench tank to fully cool.
After cooling, part dimensions were recorded to be compared to the initial cavity dimensions.
Sand was then beaten out of the aluminum mold so that it could be used again for the incoming
class. A spiked hammer was used to remove the sand. Large quantities of the sand were
blackened and charred from the molten metal.

Findings:

Actual Mold Fill Time: 4.8 s

Molded Part Dimensions: L=3.906, W=2.901, H=1.481

Mold Cavity Dimension: L=3.965, W=2.97, H=1.56

Diameter of Sprue: .7

Diameter of Riser: .7

Height of Sprue: 2.75

Flow Velocity was found using formula V=2gh
Where- g is the gravitational constant 386 in/sec^2
h is the height of the sprue
Predicted V= 46.0760 in/sec

Volumetric Flow Rate was found using the formula Q=vA
Where- v is the flow velocity
A is the cross sectional area of the liquid
Q= 17.7321 in^3/sec

Mold Fill Time was found using the formula MFT=V/Q
Where- V is the mold volume
Q is the volumetric flow rate.
MFT= 1.0360 sec

% error MFT = 463%

Part Shrinkage was found using the formula Sv=[(1-SS)(1-STC)]^
Where- SS is the Solidification Shrinkage % which for aluminum is given as 7.0%
STC is the Solid Thermal Contraction % which for aluminum is 5.6%
Sv= 0.9575

Calculated Part Shrinkage Dimensions
L = 3.7965

W= 2.8437

H= 1.4937

Visual Findings:
Visually, the part had several major defects. The base of the part where the fill hole was
located had minor surface defects created by initial turbulent flow and subsequent mold erosion.
The fill location also was the site for major porous regions on the part. This porosity was
caused by gas bubbles trapped due to the turbulent flow. Viewing the part from the sides,
laminar flow lines are visible, making it possible to see how the mold filled. Looking at the side
closest to the fill hole, however, reveals an amalgamation of lines, indicating heavy turbulence.
The top of the part also contained a large dip into the metal. This sagging area was caused by
the gas trapped between the vent and fill holes as the part cooled. A similar, though much
smaller dip, was present on the underside of the part.

Interpretation and Results:

After casting and looking at the casted block, there were significant problems with the
cast part. The Part came out smaller than the dimensions we calculated. This was from non
perfect cooling and casting of the part. We also had a lot of defects. One of the defects that was
most noticeable was the surface depression on top of the mold caused by shrinkage (see
picture 1 in Attachments). Surface depressions can be fixed by molding parts with uniform wall
thickness. Another visible defect we had was porosity. Porosity is found in all metal casting, and
cannot be avoided. However, its location can be controlled by venting the mold where you want
the porosity in your part. For this lab, porosity was found in the corner of the block (see picture
4 in Attachments). Other defects include mold filling lines that are found on the side of the mold
and during filling (see picture 3 in Attachments). This can be reduced with faster filling time and
more consistent pouring of the Aluminum. The last defect we found was mold erosion caused by
the molten metal pouring into the mold and eroding the bottom of mold away (see picture 10 in
Attachments). This defect can be fixed by changing where the molten liquid enters the mold. In
the industry, the sprue is located to the side of the mold where a nice laminar flow can occur,
and the mold can fill without mold erosion and fill more evenly. The defects we produced were
excellent examples to show the problems that the casting process can have. This can now be
applied to make better parts and get rid of almost all defects. Porosity, however, cannot be
eliminated. It can be minimized and localized with correct mold design.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

The purpose of this experiment was to demonstrate the process of sand casting. While
being the oldest known form of casting, it is still a process that is very fundamental to
manufacturing and machining today. Sand casting is still a good way to mold complex and
large parts but is less suited for mass production. The instructions were to complete the casting
in a way that would create defects and imperfections in the final part to create better learning
objectives.
The mold was first measured with dial calipers. Then the mold walls were marked using
two rulers and a permanent marker to ensure proper placement of the sprue and riser. A metal
sieve was placed over the mold, the sand was hand ground through the sieve to cover the mold
with a fine even layer of sand. This ensured less air gaps trapped between the mold and sand.
Once the mold was covered evenly, unsieved sand was dumped and pack tightly around the
mold. The sand was beat with a wooden compactor to ensure a good compression of sand
around the mold. A straight edge piece of metal was then used to scrape the sand level with
the mold frame. The same process was then repeated on the other half of the mold. A sprue
and riser were cut into the mold using a hollow steel rod. The ruler was then used to cut a
funnel shape around the opening to help with pouring. Then the top half of the mold was pulled
off, the middle section was then pulled off carefully and evenly to not damage the mold cavity.
Aluminum was superheated in a crucible, the ladle was preheated over the top of the crucible
before pouring the aluminum into it. The ladle was then used to pour the molten aluminum into
the mold at a rapid rate to prevent defects. The pour time started as soon as the aluminum hit
the funnel of the sprue and was stopped when aluminum reached the top of the riser. It was
recorded using a digital stopwatch. After a ten minute cool down the mold was taken apart and
the part was broken from the sand with a mallet. The cast part was held with tongs and
quenched in a water bath due to its high temperature. The part was then analyzed for defects
and measured for final dimensions upon cooling.
Should the experiment be repeated, several recommendations have been made by both
the students and the instructor to improve molded part quality. The major issue present was the
high turbulence and mold erosion caused by the location of the fill hole. The poor choice of
location was also a major cause of porosity. If the fill hole were moved off to the side and
connected to the cavity at a 90* angle, this would allow all erosion and turbulence to occur off to
the side of the part and allow laminar filling of the mold.
The part had four major defects which were detectable with the naked eye. Mold
erosion, turbulence while filling, localized shrinkage forming sinkholes, and large amounts of
porosity throughout the part. The mold erosion could have been minimized by changing the
location of the sprue. The direct sprue into the mold caused too much turbulence at the bottom
of the mold. Cutting the sprue in away from the cavity would allow a nice laminar flow of the
molten aluminum into the mold cavity. The sprue being farther from the riser would have
created a more even fill rate which would have allowed gases and air to escape from the riser;
lowering the amount of porosity in the part and chances of depressions. The other defects,
such as extraneous error in the mold fill time calculation, were caused by human error during
the pouring process.
Overall the experiment was a success. The proper process of the lab was followed
correctly and the result of the aluminum part contained many defects. These defects were a
result of improper mold construction that was intentional to aid in learning the importance of
mold construction, and pouring techniques.





Attachments:
Calculations,data sheets, figures, pictures, etc

(1) Shrinkage causes Depression on Surface (2) Finished Mold

(3) Mold filling lines (4) Porosity in Corner of Mold

(5) Pouring of Aluminum into Mold (6) Sifting of sand to get air gaps out


(7) Packing Sand into Mold (8) Positioning of Internal Block

(9) Molten Aluminum Transfer (10) Mold Erosion


(11) Half of mold with fill hole (12) Aluminum Pellet used to make mold

Calculations:

Flow Rate
V= sqrt(2*2.75 in*386 in/sec^2)= 46.0760 in/sec

Volumetric Flow Rate
Q= pi((.35)^2)(46.0760)= 17.7321 in^3/sec

Mold Fill Time
MFT= (3.965)(2.97)(1.56)/17.7321= 1.0360 sec

% error of MFT
%error= 1.036/4.8= 4.63= 463%

Shrinkage Value
Sv=[(1-0.07)(1-0.056)]^ =0.9575

Calculated Part Shrinkage Values

L = (.9575)(3.965)= 3.7965

W= (.9575)(2.97)= 2.8437

H= (.9575)(1.56)= 1.4937