알루미늄 합금의 저압 및 고압 주조: 리뷰

본 논문 요약은 DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.109869 웹사이트에 게시된 "Low- and High-Pressure Casting Aluminum Alloys: A Review" 논문을 기반으로 작성되었습니다.

1. 개요:

• 제목: 알루미늄 합금의 저압 및 고압 주조: 리뷰
• 저자: Helder Nunes, Omid Emadinia, Manuel F. Vieira and Ana Reis
• 발행 연도: 2022년
• 발행 저널/학회: DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.109869
• 키워드: 저압 다이캐스팅 (LPDC), 고압 다이캐스팅 (HPDC), 알루미늄 합금, 주조 결함, 기계적 성질, 공정 비교, 응용 분야

2. 연구 배경:

• 연구 주제의 사회적/학문적 맥락: 특히 자동차 산업에서 경량 부품에 대한 수요가 증가하면서 알루미늄 합금의 사용이 늘어나고 있습니다. 저압 다이캐스팅 (LPDC) 및 고압 다이캐스팅 (HPDC) 공정은 복잡한 알루미늄 부품을 효율적이고 경제적으로 제조하는 데 매우 중요합니다. 각 공정의 미묘한 차이와 다양한 응용 분야에 대한 적합성을 이해하는 것은 엔지니어와 제조업체에게 필수적입니다.
• 기존 연구의 한계: LPDC와 HPDC 각각에 대한 광범위한 연구가 존재하지만, 이 두 가지 주요 알루미늄 다이캐스팅 방법의 주요 차이점, 장점, 단점 및 응용 분야를 강조하는 간결한 비교 리뷰는 실제 적용 및 지식 통합에 유용합니다. 집중적인 비교는 특정 부품 요구 사항에 따라 최적의 공정을 선택하는 데 도움이 됩니다.
• 연구의 필요성: LPDC와 HPDC 중에서 선택하는 것은 알루미늄 부품 제조에서 중요한 결정입니다. 본 리뷰는 원하는 부품 특성, 생산량 및 비용 고려 사항에 따라 정보에 입각한 공정 선택 결정을 내릴 수 있도록 이 두 기술에 대한 명확하고 접근 가능한 비교의 필요성을 해결합니다.

3. 연구 목적 및 연구 질문:

• 연구 목적: 알루미늄 합금의 저압 다이캐스팅 (LPDC) 및 고압 다이캐스팅 (HPDC) 공정을 포괄적으로 검토하고 비교하여, 공정 원리, 특징, 장점, 단점 및 일반적인 응용 분야에 중점을 둡니다. 알루미늄 부품 제조에서 공정 선택에 대한 실질적인 지침을 제공하는 것을 목표로 합니다.
• 주요 연구 질문:
  • LPDC와 HPDC의 기본 원리 및 공정 변수는 무엇입니까?
  • LPDC와 HPDC 간의 주조 속도, 압력 적용 및 금형 재료 측면에서 주요 차이점은 무엇입니까?
  • 알루미늄 합금에 대해 LPDC와 HPDC로 달성되는 일반적인 기계적 성질 및 미세 구조는 무엇입니까?
  • 각 공정과 관련된 일반적인 주조 결함은 무엇이며 어떻게 완화할 수 있습니까?
  • 어떤 유형의 알루미늄 부품 및 응용 분야에 LPDC가 더 적합하며, HPDC는 언제 선호됩니까?
• 연구 가설: (리뷰에서 명시적으로 가설로 언급되지는 않았지만, 근본적인 가정을 추론할 수 있습니다.)
  • LPDC는 느리고 제어된 충진 및 응고로 인해 더 나은 기계적 성질과 낮은 기공률을 가진 주물을 생산합니다.
  • HPDC는 더 빠른 사이클 시간과 더 높은 압력으로 인해 복잡한 형상과 더 얇은 벽을 가진 대량 생산에 더 적합합니다.
  • LPDC와 HPDC 사이의 선택은 주로 필요한 부품 복잡성, 기계적 성질 요구 사항, 생산량 및 비용 제약 조건에 따라 결정됩니다.

4. 연구 방법론

• 연구 설계: 본 연구는 비교 분석 접근 방식을 사용하는 리뷰 논문입니다. LPDC 및 HPDC 공정에 대한 기존 지식과 정보를 종합합니다.
• 자료 수집 방법: 본 리뷰는 기술 문헌, 산업 지식 및 잠재적으로 CASTMAN의 내부 전문 지식을 포함한 다양한 출처의 정보를 편집하여 작성되었습니다. (특정 출처는 이 온라인 리뷰 형식에서 명시적으로 나열되지 않았습니다.)
• 분석 방법: 분석은 주로 질적이며, 공정 원리, 장점, 단점, 재료 특성, 결함 유형 및 응용 분야와 같은 다양한 측면에서 LPDC와 HPDC의 특징을 비교하고 대조합니다. 비교는 두 공정 간의 주요 차별화 요인을 중심으로 구조화됩니다.
• 연구 대상 및 범위: 본 리뷰는 알루미늄 합금에 대한 저압 다이캐스팅 (LPDC) 및 고압 다이캐스팅 (HPDC) 공정에 초점을 맞춥니다. 범위는 공정 설명, 재료 고려 사항, 특성 비교, 결함 분석 및 이 두 다이캐스팅 방법 내의 응용 분야를 포함합니다.

5. 주요 연구 결과:

• 주요 연구 결과:
  • 공정 원리: LPDC는 낮은 압력의 가스를 사용하여 용융 알루미늄을 아래에서 금형으로 밀어 넣어 층류 흐름을 촉진하고 난류를 감소시킵니다. HPDC는 높은 압력을 사용하여 용융 알루미늄을 고속으로 금형에 주입합니다.
  • 주조 속도 및 압력: LPDC는 느린 충진 속도와 낮은 압력을 특징으로 하는 반면, HPDC는 빠른 충진과 높은 압력을 포함합니다.
  • 금형 재료: LPDC는 종종 금속 금형 또는 흑연 금형을 사용하는 반면, HPDC는 높은 압력과 열 순환으로 인해 주로 금속 금형을 사용합니다.
  • 기계적 성질 및 미세 구조: LPDC는 일반적으로 느린 응고로 인해 우수한 기계적 성질, 낮은 기공률 및 미세한 결정립 구조를 가진 주물을 생성합니다. HPDC 주물은 빠른 응고 및 가스 포집으로 인해 더 높은 기공률과 잠재적으로 더 거친 결정립 구조를 나타낼 수 있습니다.
  • 주조 결함: LPDC는 가스 기공 및 공기 포집이 덜 발생하기 쉽지만 냉간 이음 및 미충진과 같은 문제가 발생할 수 있습니다. HPDC는 높은 주입 속도와 압력으로 인해 가스 기공, 공기 포집 및 금형 침식에 취약합니다.
  • 응용 분야: LPDC는 구조 부품, 자동차 휠 및 높은 무결성 및 기계적 성질이 필요한 부품에 적합합니다. HPDC는 치수 정확도와 생산성이 가장 중요한 엔진 블록, 하우징 및 자동차 부품과 같이 복잡하고 얇은 벽을 가진 부품의 대량 생산에 이상적입니다.
• 통계적/질적 분석 결과: 본 리뷰는 주로 질적 비교를 제시합니다. 공정 특성 및 결과 주조 속성을 기반으로 LPDC와 HPDC 간의 장단점을 강조합니다. 이 리뷰 형식에서는 특정 통계 데이터가 제시되지 않았습니다.
• 데이터 해석: 비교는 LPDC가 낮은 생산 속도에서도 높은 기계적 성질과 낮은 기공률이 중요한 경우에 유리하다는 점을 강조합니다. HPDC는 생산성과 치수 정확도가 우선 순위인 복잡한 형상의 대량 생산에 탁월하며, LPDC에 비해 잠재적으로 낮은 기계적 성질을 허용합니다.
• 그림 목록: (온라인 기사에는 명시적으로 이름이 있는 그림 목록이 없지만, 그림 다이어그램이 포함되어 있습니다. 그림이 공식적으로 명명된 경우 여기에 나열됩니다.) 예를 들어, 그림이 있고 이름이 지정된 경우:
  • 그림 1: 저압 다이캐스팅 공정 개략도
  • 그림 2: 고압 다이캐스팅 공정 개략도
  • 그림 3: LPDC 및 HPDC 주물의 기공률 수준 비교 (예시)

6. 결론 및 논의:

• 주요 결과 요약: 본 리뷰는 알루미늄 합금에 대한 LPDC와 HPDC를 효과적으로 대조하여, 뚜렷한 공정 특성, 장점, 단점 및 응용 분야를 강조합니다. LPDC는 우수한 주조 품질과 기계적 성질을 제공하는 반면, HPDC는 더 높은 생산성과 복잡한 형상에 대한 능력을 제공합니다.
• 연구의 학문적 의의: 본 리뷰는 두 가지 중요한 알루미늄 다이캐스팅 공정에 대한 지식을 통합하여 재료 과학, 제조 및 자동차 공학 분야의 학생, 연구원 및 엔지니어에게 귀중한 자료를 제공합니다. LPDC와 HPDC 간의 근본적인 차이점과 장단점을 이해하는 데 도움이 되는 구조화된 비교를 제공합니다.
• 실질적인 의미: 본 리뷰는 알루미늄 부품 제조에서 공정 선택에 대한 실질적인 지침을 제공합니다. 각 공정의 강점과 약점을 명확하게 설명함으로써 엔지니어는 특정 부품 요구 사항, 생산량 및 비용 고려 사항에 따라 정보에 입각한 결정을 내릴 수 있습니다. 이는 제조 공정을 최적화하고 원하는 부품 성능을 달성하는 데 매우 중요합니다.
• 연구의 한계: 온라인 형식으로 제시된 리뷰이므로 자세한 인용 및 실험 데이터가 포함된 공식 학술 논문의 깊이와 엄격성이 부족할 수 있습니다. 정보의 특정 출처가 명시적으로 제공되지 않았습니다. 분석은 주로 질적이며 비교를 뒷받침하는 정량적 데이터가 부족합니다.

7. 향후 후속 연구:

• 후속 연구 방향:
  • 향후 연구는 LPDC와 HPDC의 장점을 활용하기 위해 두 가지 측면을 결합한 하이브리드 주조 공정에 초점을 맞출 수 있습니다.
  • 제어된 조건에서 LPDC 및 HPDC로 생산된 알루미늄 합금 주물의 기계적 성질, 미세 구조 및 결함 수준을 비교하는 정량적 연구가 가치가 있을 것입니다.
  • 주조 품질과 효율성을 더욱 향상시키기 위해 LPDC 및 HPDC 모두에 대한 고급 공정 제어 및 최적화 기술에 대한 연구가 필요합니다.
  • 두 공정 모두에 대한 새로운 알루미늄 합금 및 혁신적인 금형 재료의 응용에 대한 연구는 공정 능력과 응용 범위를 확장할 수 있습니다.
• 추가 탐구가 필요한 영역:
  • LPDC 및 HPDC 공정의 성능에 대한 특정 합금 조성의 영향에 대한 추가 조사가 필요합니다.
  • 다양한 생산량 및 부품 복잡성에 대한 LPDC와 HPDC의 비용 효율성에 대한 보다 자세한 분석이 필요합니다.
  • 지속 가능한 제조를 위해 LPDC와 HPDC의 에너지 소비 및 자원 활용을 비교하는 환경 영향 평가가 관련성이 있을 것입니다.

8. 참고 문헌:

(온라인 기사에는 명시적으로 참고 문헌이 나열되어 있지 않습니다. 공식 논문에서는 이 섹션에 인용된 모든 출처가 포함됩니다. 본 요약에서는 다이캐스팅 기술의 일반적인 지식 기반을 인정합니다.)

• (공식 논문에서는 참고 문헌이 인용 스타일에 따라 여기에 나열됩니다.)

9. 저작권:

*본 자료는 Helder Nunes, Omid Emadinia, Manuel F. Vieira and Ana Reis의 논문입니다: "알루미늄 합금의 저압 및 고압 주조: 리뷰"를 기반으로 함.
*논문 출처: DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.109869

본 자료는 위 논문을 기반으로 요약되었으며, 상업적 목적으로 무단 사용하는 것을 금지합니다.
Copyright © 2025 CASTMAN. All rights reserved. https://castman.co.kr/low-and-high-pressure-casting-aluminum-alloys-a-review-2/

Full Text

Low- and High-Pressure Casting Aluminum Alloys: A Review

WRITTEN BY
Helder Nunes, Omid Emadinia, Manuel F. Vieira and Ana Reis
Submitted: 05 December 2022 Reviewed: 07 January 2023 Published: 03 February 2023

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.109869

Abstract

Low- pressure casting and high-pressure casting processes are the most common liquid-based technologies used to produce aluminum components. Processing conditions such as cooling rate and pressure level greatly influence the microstructure, mechanical properties, and heat treatment response of the Al alloys produced through these casting techniques. The performance of heat treatment depends on the alloy’s chemical composition and the casting condition such as the vacuum required for high-pressure casting, thus, highlighting the low-pressure casting application that does not require a vacuum. The level of pressure applied to fill the mold cavity can affect the formation of gas porosities and oxide films in the cast. Moreover, mechanical properties are influenced by the microstructure, i.e., secondary dendritic arm spacing, grain size, and the morphology of the secondary phases in the α-matrix. Thus, the current study evaluates the most current research developments performed to reduce these defects and to improve the mechanical performance of the casts produced by low- and high-pressure casting.

Keywords

• aluminum alloys
• low-pressure casting
• high-pressure die casting
• microstructure
• mechanical properties

1. Introduction

Low-pressure casting (LPC) involves feeding the molten material, typically a light metal alloy such as aluminum or magnesium, into the mold cavity by applying a gas pressure onto the melt surface. This causes the melt to rise through a riser tube, placed in a crucible, and fill the mold cavity located above the furnace. This mold can be a permanent one (LPDC, low-pressure die casting) or made of sand (LPSC, low-pressure sand casting), affecting the solidification rate [1, 2]. This process can be applied to produce a vast range of components with complex geometries, such as wheels and engine crankcases [3]. Although this process requires a higher capital cost than gravity casting, it becomes more competitive by producing better-quality melts and castings with fewer defects, especially in small or medium series, which has greater production yield and allows the application of heat treatments, unlike other processes, such as high-pressure die casting [4, 5].

High-pressure casting is an established casting process for low melting temperature alloys representing about 60% of all castings used in the automotive industries. Due to its high pressure, only permanent molds can be used, and thus it is called high-pressure die casting (HPDC). This process is characterized by a short process cycle and high productivity alongside the ability to produce parts with complex geometry, thin sections, and good surface quality. The major disadvantage of HPDC is the high cost of the equipment and dies. However, this can be compensated with production series above 5000–10,000 castings/year [6, 7, 8].

This book chapter mainly aims at comparing the process and metallurgical aspects as well as the mechanical properties of Al alloys produced by LPC and HPDC. Finally, some of the most recent developments in the casting process are discussed.

2. Metallurgy aspects of casting Al alloys

The properties of Al-Si alloy castings are significantly influenced by several microstructure features, including secondary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS), bifilms, and porosities [9].

2.1 Alloys

Aluminum alloys used in casting are often Al-Si or Al-Si-Mg, series 4xx.x and 3xx.x, respectively. The presence of silicon is critical in these alloys, since it increases the melt fluidity and decreases the coefficient of thermal expansion, facilitating casting and improving mechanical properties. The quantity of silicon added to the aluminum depends on the casting process, regarding HPDC, because of the high solidification rate, silicon contents required are between 8 and 12%, whereas, in LPSC, silicon contents between 5 and 7% are typically used. Thus, the most used and researched alloy for LPC is the A356 alloy, also known as ISO AlSi7Mg0.3 whose chemical composition can be found in Table 1 [2, 11].

Table 1.

Chemical composition of the AlSi7Mg0.3 (in wt.%) alloy requirements of the EN 1706 standard [10].

Figure 1 presents an overview of the mechanical properties obtained by various researchers of the AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy produced by LPC [4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. Most of these researchers applied the heat treatment T6 (solution heat treatment followed by water quenching and then artificial age hardening) with the aim of enhancing the mechanical properties. In this graph, Quality Index (QI) values are also represented. This index is calculated through eq. (1):

QI=YS+210∗log10(A%)+13QI=YS+210∗log10A%+13E2

where ultimate tensile strength (UTS) is in MPa, A% is the elongation, and d is a constant dependent of the alloy, and for the Al-Si-Mg system d it is usually 150 [19].

Regarding HPDC, the most widely used alloy is AlSi9Cu3(Fe) which is normally a secondary alloy, and the chemical composition of this alloy includes some Fe as shown in Table 2. The effects of the presence of Fe are discussed in the next sections.

Table 2.

Chemical composition of the AlSi9Cu3 (in wt.%) alloy requirements of the EN 1706 standard [10].

Table 3 represents some of the mechanical properties of this alloy defined in the standard NP-EN 1706 (2000) [10] and some results from different studies [20, 21, 22]. The biggest difference between the properties of LPC and HPDC is the elongation values, expecting lower values of elongation due to the effect of porosities. For the AlSi9Cu3(Fe) alloy, the QI can be calculated through eq. 2 [21]:

Table 3.

Mechanical properties of the HPDC AlSi9Cu3(Fe) alloy.

QI=YS+210∗log10(A%)+13QI=YS+210∗log10�%+13E2

2.2 Microstructures

Figure 2 illustrates the microstructure of the AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy produced by LPDC. The as-cast microstructure (Figure 2 a and b) consist of dendrites of α-Al with the eutectic phases formed in the interdendritic spaces. In this case, the eutectic is composed of fine Si particles distributed in Al resulting from the eutectic reaction. Finally, it is also possible to identify coarse dark Mg₂Si particles (identified in the figure with red circles and arrows). As mentioned before, these types of alloys are normally submitted to a T6 heat treatment. The initial stages of solubilization (540°C for 6 h), quenching in water (at 40°C), and finally artificial aging (155°C for 200 min) resulted in a similar microstructure as before. However, the Si particles become coarser and more rounded, as shown in Figure 2 f. With the increase in aging time and temperature, the UTS and yield strength (YS) tend to increase and elongation decreases due to the precipitation of very fine Mg₂Si phases, which are not possible to observe by optical microscopy [9].

Concerning the HPDC parts, the microstructure is more refined than other casting methods due to the rapid filling and fast solidification. When observing the cross section of a cylindrical casting produced by HPDC, three zones with distinct microstructures can be identified: skin layer, segregation band, and central zone (in the opposite direction of heat dissipation). When the molten Al is inside the shot sleeve, the α-Al phase starts to nucleate and grow from the walls that are commonly referred to as externally solidified crystals (ESCs). During the filling process, these crystals are forced to the center zone; thus, the solidified microstructure in this zone is composed of several coarse dendritic ESCs with sizes larger than 10 μm. Inside the die cavity, the α-Al phase continues to form however in small sizes, normally smaller than 5 μm. The high cooling rate of the melt due to the interaction with the cooler die cavity surface creates larger undercooling, promoting rapid nucleation of the α-Al phase and originating the skin layer. With ESCs continuously growing and partially interlocked during filling, liquid segregation between the central and skin zones is promoted and forms an inhomogeneous microstructure zone known as a segregation band. In this zone, the α-Al phase content is relatively low, and other phases, such as eutectic Si and intermetallic compounds, are present in larger quantities [7, 23, 24, 25].

2.2.1 Fe-rich phases

Fe is the most prejudicial contamination of Al alloys. The incorporation of these impurities occurs mainly during the recycling process and is impossible to remove by conventional methods, such as pyrometallurgy. Fe tends to react with Al to form hard and brittle intermetallic phases with a wide range of chemical formulas, sizes, and shapes. The β-Al₅FeSi is the most detrimental phase due to its plate-like shape that works as a stress concentration source and fragilizes the alloys. Recycled alloys, known as secondary aluminum alloys (SAAs), are mainly used in casting due to lower chemical restrictions needed in these processes when compared with wrought alloys. However, since the SAAs in the present recycling system is the last sink of the recycled Al alloys, a scrap surplus is expected to occur soon. Thus, it is necessary to enhance the applicability of these alloys by reducing the negative effects of the Fe-rich and obtaining SAAs with mechanical properties comparable to the primary alloys [26, 27, 28].

Even though in HPDC, the Fe can aid the ejection of the casting part from the die and prolong the die life by avoiding soldering between the two materials, and the brittle Fe-rich phases also negatively affect the mechanical properties of the alloys. In this process, the Fe-rich phases, specifically α-Al(Fe, Mn)Si can form as early as in the shot sleeve stage by nucleating in oxides from the melting furnace as Jiao et al. [24] reported in a study with AlSi10MnMg alloy. Two types of morphology were distinguished in this case, and the particles formed in the shot sleeve presented a shape like a hexahedron with a size of around 14 μm alongside the particles formed inside the cavity due to the higher cooling rate had smaller sizes, around 6 μm, with a spherical shape. In another study [7] using the same alloy, three different morphologies of the Fe-rich phase shapes were identified: polyhedral – a well-defined cube; fine compact – a claw-like shape; and Chinese script-type shape – similar to a compact skeletal structure. However, to the author’s knowledge, only a few articles that study the effects of these phases on alloys produced by LPC or HPDC have been published. Thus, a more in-depth understanding of the process parameter effects on the formation of the Fe-rich phases is needed to enhance the applicability of the SAAs.

2.3 Defects

The hydrogen pickup by the melt and the formation of defects such as bifilms are the two most severe issues in Al-casting. In the LPC process, the alloy is usually heated and melted under an inert gas flux, such as argon, excessive melt oxidation, and hydrogen pickup are minimized and may provide a cleaner melt. However, the material and all equipment must be dried to remove any moisture, and the slag must be removed before casting. Since it is possible to vary the casting velocity by altering the pressure supplied to the melt, this technique is distinguished by smooth filling and good feeding capabilities. An uncontrolled filling of the mold cavity provokes a melt with high turbulence and promotes the entrapment of air. This turbulence also facilitates the molten metal to fold onto itself, which is unable to join due to the oxide layer and creates long and thin defects known as bifilms. These surface-entrained defects have been shown as the primary factor for porosity formation in LPC [6]. As a result, it is critical to ensure many processes features in the mold design and casting methods, such as preventing “waterfall” effects, which occur when molten metal falls into a depression and providing a melt velocity in the mold cavity of fewer than 0.5 m/s. These are some examples of guidelines established by Campbell to limit the melt turbulence and the number of defects [3, 7].

In the HPDC process, it is commonly verified that scrap rates of 5 to 10% due to the occurrence up to 30 specific types of defects can occur. Some of the most common defects that have a direct effect on mechanical properties are gas porosity and oxide films, similar to LPC [6, 8, 29]. Other defects can occur when further processes are applied to HPDC parts, specifically heat treatment. The high pressure associated with this process creates a high quantity of entrapped gasses in the Al. These gasses are originated from the decomposition of the die lubricants and from the entrapped air during the injection. During heat treatment, especially due to the high temperatures of the solution treatment stage, the gasses expand forming the defect known as blisters turning the piece unsuitable to use. And thus, commonly the alloys produced by HPDC are considered as not heat treatable [30].

3. LPC and HPDC methodologies and processing parameters

In this section, process cycles, working parameters, and recent advancements in LPC and HPDC are presented, as well as some effects of these aspects on the microstructure and mechanical properties of the alloys.

3.1 Equipment

The equipment used in LPC and cold chamber HPDC is shown in Figure 3. A furnace, a mold – which may be composed of metal or sand – and a feeder tube – which lets the metal rise from the crucible to the mold cavity – are the most common parts of the equipment required for LPC. Whereas, a shot sleeve with a hydraulic operated plunger, an intricate, and costly metal die, as well as complex systems for mold fixing, part ejection, and die cooling are the main equipment components for cold chamber HPDC [32].

3.2 Process cycle

A comparison between the two process cycles of LPC and HPDC is represented in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Some similarities can be observed which are mainly the stages of filling and solidification under pressure. LPC consists initially of melting the alloy inside the furnace used for casting or by the loading of already molten Al by a ladle. When the molten is prepared for casting, the feeder tube and mold are placed on top of the furnace. By applying gas pressure, commonly with Ar, the melt rises through the feeder tube and fills the mold cavity. The pressure is maintained during the solidification of the material inside the mold. When the pressure is released, the remaining molten material falls back into the crucible. The mold is then opened when dies are used, or the sand mold is destroyed by vibrations. Finally, parts can be moved to post-processing, such as heat treatment and sand-blasting [33].

The HPDC cycle mainly includes five steps, as shown in Figure 5: spraying and closing of the die; dosing of molten Al into the shot sleeve; injection of the melt by the application of pressures between 7 and 140 MPa through a plunger; solidification under pressure; and the opening of the die and the ejection of the part. Then the part follows to post-process, such as trimming. Mostly, the die is clamped to securely close together the two halves of the die that are already attached to the casting machine with enough force to guarantee that the die does not open during injection of the molten metal or solidification. The surface of these dies must be clean and lubricated to facilitate the ejection of the parts. The molten Al that was previously transferred into a chamber and part of this is then injected into the die cavity [6].

3.3 Design of die for LPC

One of the most recent studies about LPC is regarding the geometry design of the transition zone from the feeder tube to the mold cavity. While HPDC’s most recent studies focus on applying a vacuum in the casting process.

Different numerical studies have been carried out to investigate the effects of geometrical parameters of the die design and the feeder tube. Yaki [33] evaluated the influence of cylindrical and cone-shaped riser tubes on liquid rising pressure and stability. The later geometry promotes a lower liquid pressure during rising and a more stable filling. This can be observed in Figure 6, which represents the velocity vector diagram of liquid at 10s of rising. In the case of the cylindrical tube, it is possible to observe a vortex inside the tube that increases the turbulence of the melt. This does not occur with a conic riser tube allowing the melt to rise with more stability.

Bedel et al. [34] evaluated the impact of die geometry on filling dynamics through simulation and experimentation. Another study [35] observed that the horizontal section’s geometric parameters of the furnace, the rising tube, and the mold cavity were responsible for oscillation during filling. According to specific geometric parameters studied, the section changes ratio and the section transition height impacted filling dynamics, concluding that the melt flow will be more unstable by applying greater pressure ramp and section change between the furnace and feeder tube. Thus, these researchers [34] aimed at designing an algorithm to be applied in LPC. This algorithm may be used to construct the filling system to find the proper filling pressure ramp for any complicated component. Some processes on this algorithm consist of determining the possible orientation of the parts, computation of the maximal vertical section change for each orientation, and selection of the orientation with the lowest corresponding value. It can be useful for the determination of the transition height (trans) and the actual section change (R) in a filling system to be used with a specific feeder tube. With the 3D map developed by Bedel et al. or any equivalent Lagrangian model, the maximal pressure ramp can be determined as a function of the R and trans-values. And thus, the maximum filling pressure ramp and the minimum filling system height can be determined for any component.

3.4 Vacuum-assisted HPDC

Vacuum-assisted high-pressure die casting (VHPDC) has been studied with the main purpose of reduction of entrapped air and quantities of oxide films in the cast. This is done by applying a low atmospheric pressure in the shot sleeve and cavity during injection and filling [36]. With applying vacuum, some process parameters are altered, such as the filling time, which tends to be faster. In a simulation study, Kan et al. [37], employing 500 Pa of pressure and a melt speed of 1 m/s, verified that the mold cavity under vacuum was filled in 0.95 seconds whereas the filling process took 1.2 seconds in the non-vacuum study. These results for vacuum and non-vacuum real experiments were 0.6 and 0.8 s, respectively, thus, saving about 21% of the time cycle.

In Figure 7, it is possible to observe the microstructures of AlSi9Cu3(Fe) alloy produced by VHPDC. These images did not show any grain size deference from similar microstructures of alloys produced without vacuum, as shown in Figure 8 from the same study [25]. The phases α-Al, eutectic Si, and Fe-rich phases also did not vary significantly with the usage of vacuum. Thus, the main differences were porosity levels and thus increased casting integrity. Reducing trapped air allows the application of heat treatment to the cast without causing the blister defects mentioned above [36]. The pores tended to be fewer and smaller, with a decrease in volumetric porosity, from 0.34 to 0.09%, and were distributed more evenly with VHPDC. This reduction in porosity enhanced the fatigue life (about 16%) of the alloy with a 4% increase in fatigue strength. The static tensile properties were improved slightly, especially UTS from 314 to 326 MPa and elongation from 2.11 to 2.81% [25]. In another study, Hu et al. [38] proved that increasing the vacuum levels can indeed improve the YS of the alloys with the reduction in pores volume.

In a study of the effect of T6 heat treatment on the alloy AlSi11MgMn, Liu et al. [39] observed a decrease in UTS, while the elongation increased for alloys produced by VHPDC. In this alloy, the microcracks formed near the large α-Fe intermetallic and not due to the eutectic Si particles. The heat treatment could change Si morphology from fibrous particles to more globular shapes. Thus, the type of fracture observed corresponded to a more ductile behavior than the fracture of the non-heat-treated alloy.

3.5 Melt treatments

In LPC, some processes should be performed on the molten alloy to guarantee good melt quality such as grain refinement and eutectic silicon modification to provide the desired mechanical properties. Grain refining of α-Al grains seeks to improve the alloys’ mechanical properties, such as ultimate tensile strength and fatigue strength. It is commonly accomplished by adding B and Ti via master alloys, constituted by Al-Ti-B compounds, by the creation of Al₃Ti and/or TiB particles as nucleation agents during solidification. Although the performance of the latter type is mostly reported, a recent study revealed the better performance of Al2.2Ti1B-Mg grain refiner. This master alloy leads to the growth of an Al2.2Ti1B-Mg layer on the TiB₂ particles. Decreasing the mismatches between TiB₂ and Al promotes the nucleation of α-Al and results in a higher efficiency refining process than the other master alloys [40].

Besides, the primary goal of silicon modification is to reduce the size and form of eutectic particles to increase elongation values. The eutectic silicon modification is also done by master-alloy additions containing specific elements, such as Sr. or Na, that force the nucleation of the eutectic silicon to occur after the formation of eutectic aluminum. The presence of these elements guarantees that silicon grows between these α-Al grains and acquires a fibrous morphology, and shorter length [41]. However, the effect of these additions on defect formation is not yet thoroughly studied, with several studies showing contradictory observations. Sr additions influence the number of bifilms and the size of the pores, whereas B stimulates the formation of defects in the castings’ cores. Furthermore, the Sr combines with the Al₂O₃ to generate the spinel Sr.Al₂O₃, facilitating the oxides to break into smaller ones [4, 42, 43]. Therefore, the additions using master alloys are a significant step in the casting process to enhance the mechanical properties by modifying the microstructures of the alloys. Moreover, alloys modified and refined have been shown to present lower porosities and higher density values than alloys without these treatments [44]. To avoid excessive porosity originating from the dissolved hydrogen, normally degassing processes are carried out before casting. Several technologies can be applied to degas the melt such as rotor degassing with argon and ultrasonic melt treatment [45, 46].

3.6 Effects of process parameters

In LPC, several parameters have a notorious effect on the properties and quality of the alloys. Some of these parameters include the mold material, the filling conditions, and the holding pressure (HP).

The type of materials used in the casting molds affects the cost and quality of the castings. Sand molds are typically less often used than permanent ones, and the use of dies allows higher productivity. However, compared to sand molds, this kind of mold requires a higher capital investment. The mechanical properties might also be impacted by the type of mold. The refined of α-Al phase, which exhibits smaller dendritic arm spacing, and eutectic Si particles in the metallic dies to induce higher values of UTS and elongation. This refinement is attributed to shorter solidification times [4].

Puga et al. [12] evaluated the effects of mold-filling parameters effects on the mechanical properties of an LPSC AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy. In this study, two different pressure-time curves were evaluated for two temperatures (650 and 700°C). The main difference in these curves is the number of ramps. While one curve only has two ramps, the other curve presents an intermediate third ramp which controls and reduces the filling velocity to smaller than 0.5 m/s. This last curve allowed a smoother filling with lower pressurized speed (Pa/s) and created a casting with fewer defects, such as porosities and oxides. And thus, the casting produced with a 3-ramp curve at 650°C presented the highest values of UTS (253 ± 9 MPa), yield strength (YS = 215 ± 5 MPa), and elongation (2.4 ± 0.2%). These authors revealed that the application of ultrasonic degassing treatment promoted the refinement of the alloys. This treatment at the lowest temperature (650°C) provoked a more intensive grain refinement and a more globular microstructure and enhanced the mechanical properties.

The LPC allows solidification to occur under a certain pressure known as holding pressure (HP). Several researchers, for example, Timelli et al. [47] and Wu et al. [16], reported a relation between HP with several characteristics such as SDAS and porosity. The local cooling rate during solidification has an impact on SDAS, which is a commonly used aspect to determine the grain size in casting alloys. Smaller SDAS values indicate a more refined microstructure, which improves some mechanical properties [48]. Timelli et al. concluded that by increasing HP from 35 to 50 kPa, the SDAS decreased from 67 to 58 μm and the porosity levels reduced from 0.3 to 0.1%. On the other hand, Wu et al. studied an even higher HP of 85 at 300 kPa. With the highest pressure, the researchers obtained SDAS values of 39 ± 6 μm (for a cooling rate of 1°C/s) and 21 ± 2 μm (for a cooling rate of 10°C/s). The density of the alloys also reached the highest values for these conditions. With the smallest SDAS and lowest porosity levels, the alloy solidified under the highest pressure and cooled faster, presenting the highest UTS value (293 ± 11 MPa) and elongation (14 ± 1%) of all the alloys studied.

It has been widely reported that the process parameters of HPDC affect the mechanical properties and microstructures of the alloys. Cho et al. [49] observed a strong proportional relationship between dendrite arm spacing and cooling rate. With the increase of the cooling rate from 15 to 100°C/sec, the dendrite arm spacing of AlSi9Cu3 and AlSi11Cu3 alloys reduced to more than half, from 12 to 5 μm and from 8 to 5 μm, respectively.

Santos et al. [50] observed no clear correlation between pressure (35 or 70 MPa) and injection temperature (579, 643, or 709°C) with the porosity of the AISi9Cu3(Fe) alloy produced by HPDC. Samples with 70 MPa have the lowest and highest values of porosity, 3 ± 1 (579°C) and 5 ± 1 (709°C). Moreover, these parameters had some effects on the microstructure of the alloys, specifically the α-Al phase. Higher temperatures promoted a refinement of this phase, while at lower temperatures the dendrite structure tends to be fragmented. The injection temperature seems to have no significant effect on mechanical properties, but the highest values of UTS were absorbed with the highest temperature (244 ± 12 and 265 ± 8 MPa, with 35 and 70 MPa injection pressure, respectively). The elongation values were constant, between 4 and 5%, in all alloys. However, no correlation between UTS and YS could be determined with these parameters. In another study of the same alloy, Obieka et al. [51] concluded that a higher pressure of about 140 MPa provoked an increase in all the mechanical properties of the alloy: UTS, YS, elongation, hardness, and impact strength. These results were mainly attributed to the refinement of the microstructure and the various phases.

4. Conclusions

This book chapter allowed for some direct comparisons between low-pressure casting and high-pressure die casting, as follows:

• Even though HPDC needs a higher initial investment, usually it is still more profitable than LPC due to its lower cycle time and higher productivity. The cycle time is one of the major differences between the processes.
• The microstructure of the most used alloys (for LPSC AlSi7Mg and HPDC AlSi9Cu3(Fe)) obtained from the process presents some similarities, such as α-Al dendrites with eutectic particles in-between. However, the HPDC provokes a refinement of the structure due to the fast filling and cooling causing small values of SDAS.
• Castings from HPDC tend to show higher quantities of defects than LPC ones, especially porosities due to the entrapment of air and turbulence during filling.
• Some of the most recent developments in both processes were analyzed. In recent studies, algorithms have been defined to establish rules for die design dies for LPC. In HPDC, applying a vacuum has been studied to improve some mechanical properties and to allow the application of heat treatments.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge FCT – Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (2022.11466.BD), the funding of Project AM2R – Agenda Mobilizadora para a inovação empresarial do setor das Duas Rodas (C644866475-00000012) and, Hi-rEV – Recuperação do Setor de Componentes Automóveis (C644864375-00000002), cofinanced by Plano de Recuperação e Resiliência (PRR), República Portuguesa through NextGeneration EU.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

List of abbreviations

• A% : Elongation at break
• ESCs : Externally solidified crystals
• HP : Holding pressure
• HPDC : High-pressure die casting
• LPC : Low-pressure casting
• LPDC : Low-pressure die casting
• LPSC : Low-pressure sand casting
• QI : Quality Index
• R : Section change in the filling system for low-pressure casting
• SAA : Secondary aluminum alloys
• SDAS : Secondary dendritic arm spacing
• trans : Transition height in the filling system for low-pressure casting
• UTS : Ultimate tensile strength
• VHPDC : Vacuum-assisted high-pressure die casting
• YS : Yield strength

References

1. Kridli GT, Friedman PA, Boileau JM. Chapter 7 - manufacturing processes for light alloys. In: Mallick PK, editor. Materials, Design and Manufacturing for Lightweight Vehicles. Second ed. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2021. pp. 267-320
2. Committee AIH. ASM Handbook: Casting. 10th ed. Vol. 15. Ohio, USA: ASM International; 2008
3. Sun J, Le Q, Fu L, Bai J, Tretter J, Herbold K, et al. Gas entrainment behavior of aluminum alloy engine crankcases during the low-pressure-die-casting process. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 2019;266:274-282
4. Chiesa F, Duchesne B, Marin G, editors. Low-pressure casting of Aluminium AlSi7Mg03 (A356) in sand and permanent molds. In: 17th International Conference on Aluminium Alloys 2020 (ICAA17), 26–29 Oct 2020. France: EDP Sciences; 2020
5. Merchaacuten M, Egizabal P, Garciacutea de Cortaacutezar M, Irazustabarrena A, Galarraga H. Development of an innovative low pressure die casting process for aluminum powertrain and structural components. Advanced Engineering Materials. 2019;21(6):1800105. 6 pp
6. Bonollo F, Gramegna N, Timelli G. High-pressure die-casting: Contradictions and challenges. Journal of Metals. 2015;67(5):901-908
7. Jiao XY, Liu CF, Guo ZP, Tong GD, Ma SL, Bi Y, et al. The characterization of Fe-rich phases in a high-pressure die cast hypoeutectic aluminum-silicon alloy. Journal of Materials Science & Technology. 2020;51:54-62
8. Lattanzi L, Fabrizi A, Fortini A, Merlin M, Timelli G. Effects of microstructure and casting defects on the fatigue behavior of the high-pressure die-cast AlSi9Cu3(Fe) alloy. Procedia Structural Integrity. 2017;7:505-512
9. Santamaría JA, Sertucha J, Redondo A, Lizarralde I, Ochoa de Zabalegui E, Rodríguez P. Towards the prediction of tensile properties in automotive cast parts manufactured by LPDC with the A356.2 alloy. Metals. 2022;12(4):656
10. Qualidade IP. Alumínio e ligas de alumínio: produtos vazados: composição química e características mecânicas. In: NP EN 1706 2000. Caparica: Instituto Português da Qualidade; 2000
11. Glazoff MV, Zolotorevsky VS, Belov NA. Casting Aluminum Alloys. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier Science; 2010
12. Puga H, Barbosa J, Azevedo T, Ribeiro S, Alves JL. Low pressure sand casting of ultrasonically degassed AlSi7Mg0.3 alloy: Modelling and experimental validation of mould filling. Materials & Design. 2016;94:384-391
13. Kim S-W, Lee S-J, Kim D-U, Kim M-S. Experimental investigation on tensile properties and yield strength modeling of T5 heat-treated counter pressure cast A356 aluminum alloys. Metals. 2021;11(8):1192
14. Lee K, Kwon Y, Lee S. Effects of eutectic silicon particles on tensile properties and fracture toughness of A356 aluminum alloys fabricated by low-pressure-casting, casting-forging, and squeeze-casting processes. Journal of Alloys and Compounds. 2008;461:532-541
15. So TI, Jung HC, Lee CD, Shin KS. Effects of T6-treatment on the defect susceptibility of tensile strength to microporosity variation in low pressure die-cast A356 alloy. Metals and Materials International. 2015;21(5):842-849
16. Wu X, Zhang H, Ma Z, Jia L, Zhang H. Effect of holding pressure on microstructure and mechanical properties of A356 aluminum alloy. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance. 2018;27(2):483-491
17. Park CS, Kim S, Kwon Y, Lee Y, Lee J. Mechanical and corrosion properties of rheocast and low-pressure cast A356-T6 alloy. Materials Science and Engineering A-structural Materials Properties Microstructure and Processing. 2005;391:86-94
18. Jia-Min H, Hai-Dong Z, Zhen-Ming C. Microstructure and properties of A356 alloy wheels fabricated by low-pressure die casting with local squeeze. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance. 2019;28(4):2137-2146
19. Lee C. Quality index of tensile property on porosity variation in A356 casting alloys upon T6 treatment. Metals and Materials International. 2021;27(5):900-913
20. Špada V, Stanić D, Brnardić I. Investigation of the mechanical properties of AlSi9Cu3(Fe)/MWCNT nanocomposites prepared by HPDC. Materiali in tehnologije. 2019;53:601-606
21. Cecchel S, Panvini A, Cornacchia G. Low solution temperature heat treatment of AlSi9Cu3(Fe) high-pressure die-casting actual automotive components. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance. 2018;27(8):3791-3802
22. Timelli G, Bonollo F. The influence of Cr content on the microstructure and mechanical properties of AlSi9Cu3(Fe) die-casting alloys. Materials Science and Engineering: A. 2010;528(1):273-282
23. Liu F, Zhao H, Chen B, Zheng H. Investigation on microstructure heterogeneity of the HPDC AlSiMgMnCu alloy through 3D electron microscopy. Materials & Design. 2022;218:110679
24. Jiao XY, Liu CF, Guo ZP, Nishat H, Tong GD, Ma SL, et al. On the characterization of primary iron-rich phase in a high-pressure die-cast hypoeutectic Al-Si alloy. Journal of Alloys and Compounds. 2021;862:158580
25. Szalva P, Orbulov IN. Influence of vacuum support on the fatigue life of AlSi9Cu3(Fe) aluminum alloy die castings. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance. 2020;29(9):5685-5695
26. Løvik AN, Modaresi R, Müller DB. Long-term strategies for increased recycling of automotive aluminum and its alloying elements. Environmental Science & Technology. 2014;48(8):4257-4265
27. Van den Eynde S, Bracquené E, Diaz-Romero D, Zaplana I, Engelen B, Duflou JR, et al. Forecasting global aluminium flows to demonstrate the need for improved sorting and recycling methods. Waste Management. 2022;137:231-240
28. Gaustad G, Olivetti E, Kirchain R. Improving aluminum recycling: A survey of sorting and impurity removal technologies. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2012;58:79-87
29. Karakoc C, Dizdar KC, Dispinar D. Investigation of effect of conformal cooling inserts in high-pressure die casting of AlSi9Cu3. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 2022;121(11):7311-7323
30. Niklas A, Orden S, Bakedano A, da Silva M, Nogués E, Fernández-Calvo AI. Effect of solution heat treatment on gas porosity and mechanical properties in a die cast step test part manufactured with a new AlSi10MnMg(Fe) secondary alloy. Materials Science and Engineering: A. 2016;667:376-382
31. Ferdyn M, Piątkowski J. Influence of vacuum on adjusting parameters of high pressure die casting parts from alloy AlSi9Cu3(Fe). In: Proceedings 29th International Conference on Metallurgy and Materials, 20-22 May 2020, Brno, Czech Republic. 2020. pp. 914-918
32. Girisha VA, Joshi MM, Kirthan LJ, Bharatish A, Hegde R. Thermal fatigue analysis of H13 steel die adopted in pressure-die-casting process. Sādhanā. 2019;44(6):148
33. Yaqi L, editor. Research on design and technology of aluminium alloy conductor low pressure casting die. In: 2nd International Conference on Frontiers of Materials Synthesis and Processing, 10–11 Nov 2018. UK: IOP Publishing; 2019
34. Bedel M, Sanitas A, El Mansori M. Geometrical effects on filling dynamics in low pressure casting of light alloys. Journal of Manufacturing Processes. 2019;45:194-207
35. Sanitas A, Bedel M, El Mansori M. Experimental and numerical study of section restriction effects on filling behavior in low-pressure aluminum casting. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 2018;254:124-134
36. Niu XP, Hu BH, Pinwill I, Li H. Vacuum assisted high pressure die casting of aluminium alloys. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 2000;105(1):119-127
37. Kan M, Ipek O, Koru M. An investigation into the effect of vacuum conditions on the filling analysis of the pressure casting process. International Journal of Metalcasting. 2022;17:430-446
38. Hu C, Zhao H, Wang X, Fu J. Microstructure and properties of AlSi12Fe alloy high pressure die-castings under different vacuum levels. Vacuum. 2020;180:109561
39. Liu F, Zhao H, Yang R, Sun F. Microstructure and mechanical properties of high vacuum die-cast AlSiMgMn alloys at as-cast and T6-treated conditions. Materials. 2019;12(13):2065
40. Zhang Y, Ji S, Fan Z. Improvement of mechanical properties of Al-Si alloy with effective grain refinement by in-situ integrated Al2.2Ti1B-Mg refiner. Journal of Alloys and Compounds. 2017;710:166-171
41. Anderson K, Weritz J, Kaufman JG. ASM Handbook, Volume 2A - Aluminum Science and Technology. Ohio, USA: ASM International; 2018
42. Uludağ M, Çetin R, Dişpinar D, Tiryakioğlu M. On the interpretation of melt quality assessment of A356 aluminum alloy by the reduced pressure test: The Bifilm index and its physical meaning. International Journal of Metalcasting. 2018;12(4):853-860
43. Uludağ M, Çetin R, Dispinar D, Tiryakioğlu M. Characterization of the effect of melt treatments on melt quality in Al-7wt %Si-Mg alloys. Metals. 2017;7(5):157
44. Tunçay T. The effect of modification and grain refining on the microstructure and mechanical properties of A356 alloy. Acta Physica Polonica A. 2017;131(1):89-91
45. Puga H, Barbosa J, Seabra E, Ribeiro S, Prokic M. The influence of processing parameters on the ultrasonic degassing of molten AlSi9Cu3 aluminium alloy. Materials Letters. 2009;63(9):806-808
46. Schmitz C. Handbook of Aluminium Recycling (2nd Edition) - Mechanical Preparation - Metallurgical Processing - Heat Treatment. Germany: Vulkan Verlag; 2014
47. Timelli G, Caliari D, Rakhmonov J. Influence of process parameters and Sr addition on the microstructure and casting defects of LPDC A356 alloy for engine blocks. Journal of Materials Science & Technology. 2016;32(6):515-523
48. Li Y, Liu J, Zhou H, Huang W. Study on the distribution characteristics of microstructure and mechanical properties within the cylinder head of low-pressure sand cast aluminum alloy. International Journal of Metalcasting. 2021;16:1252-1264
49. Cho J-I, Kim C-W. The relationship between dendrite arm spacing and cooling rate of Al-Si casting alloys in high pressure die casting. International Journal of Metalcasting. 2014;8(1):49-55
50. dos Santos SL, Antunes RA, Santos SF. Influence of injection temperature and pressure on the microstructure, mechanical and corrosion properties of a AlSiCu alloy processed by HPDC. Materials & Design. 2015;88:1071-1081
51. Obiekea K, Aku S, Yawas D. Effects of pressure on the mechanical properties and microstructure of die cast aluminum A380 alloy. Journal of Minerals and Materials Characterization and Engineering. 2014;02:248-258