14

|
DIE CASTING ENGINEER 1JULY 2014 www. diecasting.org/dce
Venting Design and Process Optimization of Die
Casting Process for Structural Components
Part I - Venting Efciency Analysis of Die Casting Process
Changhua (Joshua) Huang
Exco Engineering
Newmarket, ON, Canada
Warren Bishenden
Exco Engineering
Newmarket, ON, Canada
Abstract
Part I of this paper presents a comprehensive and
easy-to-use method to determine the venting efciency
of a die casting process, which includes the tooling
parameters, venting system parameters and die casting
process parameters. Venting efciency is clearly defned
as the percentage ratio of air mass being vented out of
the die divided by the initial air mass of the initial air
volume in the system at room temperature, instead of
the conventional and vague cavity pressure defnition,
because cavity air pressure could be still high at the
end of fll due to a high metal injection rate even with
a vacuum system. All the expressions are written in
the form that can be easily plugged-in to a spreadsheet,
providing a convenient tool for tooling and process
engineers to design the venting process to achieve the
venting efciency target to meet the quality requirement
of a structural or conventional component. To show how
this analysis method can be used some typical vent-
ing analysis results are discussed. Te mass fow rates,
cavity air pressure and venting efciency results clearly
illustrate how the venting system performs during the
whole flling process including both the slow phase and
the fast phase.
Introduction
Air porosity is one of the most common defects in die
casting structural components. Efectively venting air
from the cavity is always a key part of tool and process
design. During the last several decades there have been
a lot of papers discussing this topic, which together have
helped tooling and process engineers to have a better
starting point for venting design and process develop-
ment or to get a better understanding of the venting
phenomenon. A few examples follow.
Draper (1967) investigated the efect of diferent vent
and gate areas on the porosity of die castings. Supported
with experimental data, Draper suggested the minimum
vent area, which is a function of ingate area, ingate metal
velocity and air temperature in the cavity. Interestingly,
Draper pointed out that the vent area (referred to as the
natural venting process) required for minimum poros-
ity in the test die casting was 5 to 10 times larger than
the values predicted by theoretical analysis. Lindsey and
Wallace (1972) presented the minimum vent area formula
as a function of cavity fll time and cavity volume, which
is based on the cavity pressure over 2 bars from the
beginning to the end of cavity fll. Karni (1991) proposed
a model to determine the cavity pressure change for natu-
ral atmospheric venting and set the fnal cavity air pres-
sure as a venting process target. Bar-Meir, et al, (1996)
presented a simplifed cylinder model for vacuum vent-
ing analysis and discussed the critical evacuation time
and critical vent area when the mass fow rate remains
constant during the flling process. Since this article is
not trying to present a historical review on this topic, only
these few papers are mentioned here.
With minimum assumptions, this article presents a set
of venting efciency analysis tools for the process and tool-
ing engineer to evaluate venting system design and the die
casting process, in which the calculation expressions are
written in a form that can be easily plugged-in to a spread-
sheet. Te quantitative venting efciency can be used as an
index to correlate the venting requirement and die casting
quality specifcation. Higher quality specifcation requires
higher venting efciency performance. From there the
engineer can properly design the venting system and die
casting process with a better starting point.
Venting Analysis Model
Figure 1 shows a typical die casting system with vacuum.
Te analysis in this article also covers natural venting
by replacing the vacuum background with the atmo-
sphere background and adjusting the analysis expressions
accordingly wherever applicable. Tis model includes the
vacuum pump, vacuum tank, vacuum valve, die cavity,
metal delivery system and ftting clearance passage. Te
ftting clearance passage can function as either a vent
during natural venting process or a leak during the slow
phase of vacuum venting process.
Te following assumptions are made:
1. Ideal gas laws are applicable. Tis assumption leads
to minimal error because air is an ideal gas in a wide
range of conditions. For the purposes of an engineering
calculation it is acceptable to treat air as an ideal gas.
2. Heat loss is negligible as the air fows via vent or
ftting clearance passage because the air venting fow
www. diecasting.org/dce JULY 2014 1DIE CASTING ENGINEER
|
15
speed is very high (normally at sonic speed) and the
contact time between the venting air and the die is
very short; thus the adiabatic condition exists. Prac-
tically, heat loss due to friction always exists espe-
cially if the venting is through a long narrow gap
channel like a chill vent or like the very thin gap of
a natural vent. In these cases the friction energy loss
may not be negligible. Tis error could be efectively
corrected by introducing a discharge coefcient of
the vent. Te discharge coefcient can be determined
with test data like an evacuation performance curve
provided by the valve or chill block manufacturer or
experimental data from the foundry
3. Te vent is placed at the last to fll zone. If a vent is
not placed at the last to fll zone, the end time for the
venting calculation should be adjusted accordingly.
Venting Flow Rate Expressions
Tere are two fow statuses that could happen as the
air passes the vent duct, which we normally defne as
choked fow or un-choked fow. Choked fow is the
condition when the vent exit velocity reaches maxi-
mum sonic speed and the volumetric fow rate reaches
the critical value. With choked fow, further increasing
the pressure diference will not increase the volumetric
fow rate, though the mass fow rate will still change
with the inlet air status parameters such as density and
pressure. In other words, the choked fow may more
appropriately be called choked speed fow to avoid
confusion. Choked fow happens as the ratio of outlet
pressure to inlet pressure is below a critical value, 0.528,
that is determined by airs properties. Un-choked fow
is the condition whereby the vent exit velocity is below
sonic speed and the volumetric fow rate is a function of
the ratio of outlet pressure to inlet pressure. In the die
casting process both fow statuses could happen due to
its a typical large range in variation.
Under adiabatic conditions the air mass fow rate via a
vent can be determined by the following expressions:
if p
o
/p
i
> 0.528 (1)
if p
o
/p
i
0.528 (2)
where:
C
d
= discharge coefcient of vent
A = vent cross section area
p
i
= air density in the source environment
p
i
= air pressure in the source environment
= adiabatic exponent of air
p
o
= air pressure in the vent outlet environment
Equation (1) and (2) can be used in vacuum venting,
natural atmospheric venting and air leakage/vent pas-
sage of ftting clearance.
Air Density in the Cavity
As the plunger tip passes the pour hole in the shot sleeve
the venting process starts. At any moment (t+dt) the air
volume in the system can be written as:
V(t+dt) = V(t) 0.25D
2
(t)dt
where:
V = is the air volume with V(0) = V
c
+ V
s
V
c
= is the air volume in the cavity
V
s
= is the air volume in the shot sleeve plus runner
D = is the plunger diameter
= is the plunger velocity
dt = is the computational time step. It has to be properly
selected to achieve reasonable accuracy. For a normal
large die casting process, the dt can be set at 0.05~0.1
sec for slow shot, and 0.005~0.01 sec for fast shot.
At any moment (t+dt) the air density in the system can
be written as:

c
(t+dt) = (m
c
(t) (
V
(t) +/-
L
(t))dt) / V(t+dt)
where:

c
= is the air density in the system
m
c
= is the residual air mass in the system

V
= is the air fow rate through vent

L
= is the air fow rate through leakage of ftting
clearance. If the cavity pressure is lower than the
ambient pressure, the leak will reduce the venting
fow rate. So, a - sign should be applied. If the
cavity pressure is higher than the ambient pressure,
the leak will actually help the venting fow rate and
hence, the + sign should be applied.
Figure 1 Typical die casting system with vacuum.


() =

()

() ((
2
+1
)
(
+1
1
)
)
if po/pi 0.528 (2)


() =

()

() (

1
) ((

()

()
)
2

()

()
)
(
+1

)
)
if po/pi > 0.528 (1)

(3)
(4)
16
|
DIE CASTING ENGINEER 1JULY 2014 www. diecasting.org/dce
Te air density
c
(t+dt) in the cavity is plugged into
equation (1) or (2) to calculate the venting mass fow
rate
V
(t+dt). For the air leak fow rate calculation the
air source could be air from the cavity (as it functions as
a vent if the cavity pressure is higher than the ambient
pressure); or the source air could be the ambient air being
sucked into the cavity due to the cavitation pressure in
the cavity created by a vacuum venting.
By introducing shot plunger speed - which is defned
by the shot profle in a die casting process - into the air
density calculation (4), it establishes the relationship
between this die casting process parameter and venting
mass fow rate.
Air Pressure in the Cavity
From laws governing ideal gases, the air pressure at time
(t+dt) in the cavity can be written as:
p
c
(t+dt) = R
c
(t+dt) T
c
(t+dt)
where:
p
c
= is the air pressure in the cavity
R = is the specifc gas constant of air
T
c
= is the air temperature in the cavity
At the beginning of the venting process the air
temperature in the cavity is about the same as the die
surface temperature and the air temperature in the
sleeve is about the same as the temperature of the top
surface of the molten metal (reasonably assumed to be
the solidus temperature of the casting alloy). Due to the
temperature difference, the hot air in the shot sleeve
will move up and enter the cavity before the plunger
begins moving. This will increase the air temperature
in the cavity to somewhere between the die surface
temperature and the solidus temperature of the cast-
ing alloy. Because the rising air temperature will
enhance venting efficiency, for a conservative analysis
the air temperature is set at the lower end of estima-
tion. Hence, we set the air temperature to the average
die surface temperature before the metal enters into
the cavity. After the metal enters the cavity, the air
temperature can be assumed to gradually be warmed up
to the solidus temperature of the casting alloy. Hence,
the air temperature in the cavity at time (t+dt) can be
written as:
T
c
(t+dt) = T
d
0 t + dt t
s
T
c
(t+dt) = T
d
+(T
s
T
d
)
(t+dt t
s
)
t
s
t+dt t
f
t
f
where:
T
d
= is the die surface temperature
T
s
= is the solidus temperature of casting alloy
t
s
= is the plunger moving time of slow phase
t
f
= is the plunger moving time of fast phase
Air Pressure in the Vent Outlet Environment
For a natural atmospheric venting process the air pres-
sure in the vent outlet environment is the ambient
pressure. For a vacuum venting process the air pres-
sure in the vent outlet environment is the vacuum tank
pressure. Here it is assumed that the vacuum system
timing control valve is installed next to the vent at the
top of the die, where it is best located. Since the vacuum
tank pressure is normally well below the critical pres-
sure of 0.528 times cavity pressure, choked fow status
is achieved. As such, the vacuum tank pressure doesnt
factor into the air mass fow rate calculation expression.
On this topic vacuum tank pressure is easily accessible
data which can be used to monitor how well the vent-
ing system is doing during a die casting process if an air
fow rate sensor is not installed in the vacuum system.
Te tank pressure can also be used to verify venting
efciency calculations.
With air density, air pressure and outlet pressure, the air
mass fow rate at time (t+dt) can be determined with equa-
tion (1) or (2). Te iterative calculation continues until the
end of cavity fll.
Total Mass of Air Vented and Venting Efciency
Te total air mass vented can be determined as:
Te venting efciency is normalized as the ratio of total
air mass vented out of the die to the total initial air mass in
the system and assuming the temperature is room tem-
perature. Tis can be expressed as:
= 100%
M
(V
c
+ V
s
)
0
where:
= is the venting efciency
V
c
= is the cavity volume
V
s
= is the air volume in the shot sleeve plus the runner volume

0
= is the air density at room temperature
Te reason to normalize the venting efciency to
room temperature is to make venting efciency com-
parable among diferent processes even though they
may have diferent parameters such as diferent metal
temperature and/or diferent die temperature before the
metal is injected. For example, if the venting efciency
is 90%, we would directly know that there is 10%
residual air mass in the casting, which is equivalent to
100 mbar cavity air pressure at room temperature before
the plunger moves. Conversely, if the venting efciency
is normalized to the hot air condition just before the
plunger moves, the venting efciency number doesnt
clearly tell how much air is really left in the casting.
(5)
(6)
(7)




= (

() +/

())

0
(8)

(8)
(9)
www. diecasting.org/dce JULY 2014 1DIE CASTING ENGINEER
|
17
Discharge Coefcient
Reference [1] pointed out that the vent area required for
minimum porosity in the test die casting was 5 to 10 times
larger than the values predicted by the theoretical analysis.
Tis is because the theoretical analysis referred to didnt
take the efect of geometry into account when determining
venting fow capacity. Here, the discharge coefcient C
d
is a
parameter to take account of the efects of the vents actual
geometry on the venting fow rate. Classic fuid mechanics
lists some discharge coefcients of typical orifce geom-
etries, which range from 0.5 to 1.2. Unfortunately, most of
these typical geometries dont match the case of a vent duct
employed in die casting. However, this is not an insur-
mountable obstacle as it is luckily the case that most vacuum
valve and chill block manufacturers provide the evacuation
performance curves of their products. With these curves and
their test conditions the discharge coefcients can be found.
For example, reference [6] presents the evacuation per-
formance curves of a valve and a chill vent block, in which
the cavity air pressures with respect to time are charted.
Based on these curves the discharge coefcients of a valve
and a vent can be determined with an iterative method
to achieve the minimum sum of square errors between
the analytical cavity pressure and the test cavity pressure
within the expected vacuum pull time. Tere are two
important points as the discharge coefcient is determined
by using of the test data: frst is the cavity volume and
tank size used to get the performance curve. If the ratio
of cavity volume to tank volume is too high (for example
over 0.1), then the lower end test data (for example below
200 mbar), should be deleted from the ftting efort. Te
second point is that even though the test data has a longer
time (x-axis) performance chart only the data within the
expected vacuum pull time should be used to achieve a
better accuracy of the discharge coefcient for the spe-
cifc application. In this example, the time range used is
0 1.75 seconds, whereas the original test data extends to
2.5 seconds. Te valves discharge coefcient is found to be
0.46, while the chill blocks discharge coefcient is 0.27.
Even though they have the same cross sectional evacuation
areas, the chill block has a much lower discharge coef-
fcient that results in much lower evacuation performance.
Te evacuation performance curve comparisons between
the analytical and test results are shown in Figure 2. With
the right discharge coefcients the analytical results match
the test results very well. It also verifes that the analytical
model and expressions have very good accuracy.
Normally a mechanical vacuum valve has a high dis-
charge coefcient, 0.4~0.9 while chill blocks have a low
discharge coefcient, 0.2~0.4. Te natural vent channel
on a seal-of surface has a very low discharge coefcient,
0.05~0.2. Te discharge coefcient of a ftting clearance
passage is much lower, < 0.1. Te authors are planning
a test to fnd the discharge coefcients of typical ftting
clearance passages.
Typical Venting Analysis Results
of Die Casting Process
Te following typical results are based on these key
process parameters:
Te solidus temperature of casting alloy = 556C
Te average die surface temperature before injection = 180C
Te die cavity volume = 11.6 liter
Te air volume in the shot sleeve and runner = 11.6 liter
Plunger moving time during slow phase = 1 sec
Plunger moving time during fast phase = 110 msec
Plunger velocity during slow phase = 0.5 m/sec
Plunger velocity during fast phase = 5 m/sec
Fast phase starts as metal hits the ingate
Vent cross sectional area = 240 mm
2
Discharge coefcient of vent = 0.5
Venting Mass Flow Rates
Figure 3 shows the venting mass fow rates of both
vacuum venting and natural venting. Te mass fow
rates of both venting processes are lower during slow
Figure 2 Comparison of analytical vacuum performance
curves and test curves.
Figure 3 Venting mass fow rates of vacuum venting process
and natural venting process.
18
|
DIE CASTING ENGINEER 1JULY 2014 www. diecasting.org/dce
phase than those during fast phase, because the cavity
pressure is strongly afected by plunger velocity. Te
higher cavity pressure results in a higher venting mass
fow rate. It also clearly shows that venting during the
fast phase plays an important role for both vacuum and
natural venting process in this case.
Cavity Pressure and Venting Efciency
Figure 4 shows the cavity pressures and venting efciencies
of both natural venting and vacuum venting. In the natural
venting case, the cavity pressure is just slightly higher than
the atmospheric pressure during the slow phase, which
means there is a balance between the plunger moving
speed and the natural venting rate. Te venting efciency
continuously increases to about 57% at the end of slow
phase. Te reader may question why the venting efciency
keeps rising while the cavity pressure is nearly stable. It is
because the air is being pushed out as the plunger moves.
In the vacuum venting case, the cavity pressure continu-
ously drops to about 306 mbars at the end of the slow
phase, while the venting efciency keeps rising to about
87%. Again, the venting efciency is normalized to the
initial air mass in the system at room temperature. At the
end of fll the venting efciency of the vacuum venting is
94%, about 14% higher than the natural venting. At the
end of fll the cavity air pressure of natural venting is about
13 bars compared to 3.9 bars in vacuum venting. Tis dem-
onstrates why using cavity air pressure to describe venting
efectiveness is not appropriate. When people talk about
a 100 mbar cavity pressure target, they actually mean or
imply that there is 10% air left in the cavity or 90% air
vented out of the cavity.
Te acceptable venting efciency level is governed by the
casting quality requirement and also strongly related to the
casting flling pattern, where the residual air/gas is entrapped.
More details will be covered in the following paper.
Conclusions
Without any complex diferential equations this article
presents direct, ready-to-use and reasonably accurate series of
equations and iterative computational procedures, which can
be plugged into a spreadsheet to analyse the venting efciency
of a die casting process. Tis analysis takes tooling parameters,
venting system parameters and die casting process parameters
into consideration. With this tool the tooling engineer can
optimize vent size and control the ftting clearances thermally
and/or mechanically. Te process engineer can optimize the
process parameters to achieve the target venting efciency
governed by the casting quality requirement.
References
1. A. B. Draper, 1967, Efect of vent and gate areas on
the porosity of die casting, Transactions of American
Foundrys Society, Vol. 75, pp 727-734
2. D. Lindsey and J. F. Wallace, 1972, Efect of vent
size and design, lubrication practice, metal degassing,
die texturing and flling of shot sleeve on die cast-
ing soundness, 7th SDCE international die casting
congress, paper no. 10372.
3. Y. Karni, 1991, Venting design in die casting: An
Analytical Approach, NADCA Congress and Expo-
sition, Detroit, MI, paper G-T91-OC2
4. G. Bar-Meir, E. R. G. Eckert, R. J. Goldstein, 1996,
Pressure die casting: a model of vacuum pumping,
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering,
Vol. 118, pp 259-265
5. A. Nouri-Borujerdi, J. A. Goldak, 2004, Modeling
of air venting in pressure die casting process, Journal
of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Vol. 126,
pp 577-581
6. C. Bagnoud, Die evacuation: Valve or chill vent?
VDS SA Vacuum Die-casting Service, from website:
www.vdssa.ch.
!
About the Author
Changhua (Joshua) Huang is senior R&D engineer at Exco
since the year 2000. His main responsibilities are conceptual
design of the die casting die system, process development and
new technology exploration, which includes fow analysis, ther-
mal analysis, structural stress analysis and beyond. He is also
actively serving the NADCA Computer Modeling Committee.
Warren Bishenden, P.Eng. Warren has been working
in the die casting industry as a process engineer and die
designer for 30 years, and working at Exco Engineering
since 1988 leading the build of a foundry for die develop-
ment and now is involved with new projects and technology.
He has two patents associated with die cast tooling.
Figure 4 Vent efciency and cavity pressure comparison (23
liters initial air volume with 2x120 mm
2
of mechanical valves
with a discharge coefcient 0.5).