Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

1999-01-0344

Squeeze Cast (SCPM) Light Weight Aluminum


Front Knuckle Case Study
David T. Gerken
Casting Technology Company

Rick Neal
Delphi Chassis Systems

International Congress and Exposition


Detroit, Michigan
March 1-4, 1999
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 1999 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

1999-01-0344

Squeeze Cast (SCPM) Light Weight Aluminum


Front Knuckle Case Study
David T. Gerken
Casting Technology Company

Rick Neal
Delphi Chassis Systems
Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

Squeeze Cast Permanent Mold (SCPM) is a premium


grade aluminum casting process frequently used to produce safety critical aluminum suspension components.
The emergence of SCPM as a major casting process for
suspension components is relatively new in the high volume automotive market. Squeeze cast aluminum components have replaced iron/steel control arms and front
knuckles in volume during the last four years.

Delphi Chassis Systems (DCS) and Casting Technology


Company (CTC) began a joint development program for a
squeeze cast aluminum front knuckle in late 1994. The
aluminum front knuckle was the focus of the new lightweight front corner conceived and designed by Delphi
Chassis Saginaw Operations. The need for a new lightweight front corner was driven by ever more stringent fuel
economy regulations and competitive performance
requirements expected by the general public.

In late 1994, Delphi Chassis Systems and Casting Technology Company (A joint venture between Amcast Industrial and Izumi Industries) began a joint development
program for an aluminum front knuckle conversion slated
for application on mainstream passenger cars. This was
the first high volume production two-cavity squeeze cast
aluminum conversion program of its kind. Previously, aluminum conversions on front knuckles were limited to
comparatively small volume single platform programs.
This joint program is applicable to volumes in excess of
1.5 million cars annually. Squeeze casting was selected
based on the superior physical and mechanical properties, dimensional capabilities, integrated process controls, and previous success with the squeeze cast
aluminum front knuckle used on other lower volume
applications.

The goals and objectives established for the front knuckle


design were based on strength and stiffness of existing
standards for cast iron front knuckles. Cast iron front
knuckles set the standard for laboratory bench testing.
The new squeeze cast aluminum knuckle would have to
meet or exceed the existing test bogie achieved by the
iron castings. Vehicle weight restrictions were set prior to
the initiation of the lightweight front corner project. This
was a primary driver for the lighter weight benefit of an
aluminum front knuckle. Earlier low volume single platform programs established expectations for vehicle performance and achievable mass targets.
The lightweight front corner project is applicable for volumes in excess of 1.5 million cars annually. A major conversion of this type mandates conservatism in design,
testing, evaluation, and planning. This paper will detail
the conversion process from an original cast iron design
to the final squeeze cast aluminum design. A comparative analysis to cast iron weight, validation testing, and
road performance will be provided. In addition, differences in processing of the aluminum front knuckle will be
discussed with respect to machining and assembly.

This paper will detail the history of the Delphi Chassis


System / Casting Technology Company aluminum front
knuckle conversion from cast iron to squeeze cast aluminum. The conversion process from concept design
through continuous improvement will be described.
Design and validation for simulated road performance relative to the aluminum conversion will be discussed as
well as recent efforts to improve upon the design for an
even lighter weight more near net product. Topics covered will include cast iron and squeeze cast aluminum
comparisons of mass savings, near net shape, quality
requirements, and processing differences from casting
through final assembly.

THE DESIGN PROCESS


Initial prints issued for quotation were based on cast iron
designs. Notes were changed where appropriate to
account for mechanical property differences in the material and a goal of 40% weight savings (compared to a
1

those features necessary to define the general structure


are included for efficiency of mesh generation. However,
the model used for analysis does not include features
(draft, fillet, radii, parting lines) necessary to produce the
casting.

known iron design). The print established spatial relationships for connections to the lower ball joint, steering arm,
strut attachment, brake caliper, and bolt on bearing.
Table 1 compares the properties of cast iron commonly
used for front knuckles to the published values for the
A356 alloy identified for use. A356 is considered by many
to be the work horse of the aluminum casting industry. It
is a versatile, readily available alloy offering good
strength and excellent casting properties. For the purposes of this program, mechanical properties normally stated as typical were used as statistical
minimums. This was a first in the aluminum casting
industry. Previously, the term minimum meant that no
sample pulled subsequent to heat treat shall be below
the stated value. Mechanical properties are generally not
normally distributed and have therefore not been subject
to statistical process control. The magnitude of the program (1.5 million vehicles) necessitated the creation of a
new standard for statistical control of mechanical properties.
Table 1.

Property Comparison
Aluminum
Statistical Min.

Iron Minimum

Tensile

276 MPa

414 MPa

Yield

207 MPa

276 MPa

Property

Elongation
Fatigue

8%

10%
7

70 MPa, N = 10

207 MPa, N = 107

Typical
Density

2.7

E-6

kg/mm3

Figure 1. Finite Model

5.94 E-6 kg/mm3

The FEA design output underwent Design for Manufacturability (DFM) review during a six-month series of joint
DCS/CTC Product Design and Manufacturing Engineering meetings. Draft, fillet, radii, and parting lines, machining stock, and design features necessary to allow for
employment of a two cavity tooling design were applied.
The two cavity design criteria were of particular importance as this significantly improved the cost effectiveness
of the aluminum front knuckle conversion.

Table 1 demonstrates that aluminum has approximately


67% of the strength of iron yet is 45% of the weight. The
statistical minimums established for the A356 alloy were
used in the design of the basic front knuckle shape
required to support the vehicle loading under standard
test conditions. Finite element studies performed on the
shape identified high stress areas requiring additional
material. The computer simulations of the following load
cases performed include:

A two-cavity front knuckle squeeze casting had never


been attempted previous to this program. This posed a
difficult challenge for casting and tooling design. Two cavities increase the complexity of the tool design. Application of draft must be clearly understood by manufacturing
engineers responsible for machining of the casting.

1. Panic brake (Low cycle fatigue)


2. Brake reaction fatigue (High cycle fatigue)
3. Severe cornering (Low cycle fatigue)
4. Cornering fatigue (High cycle fatigue)
5. Steering arm (High cycle fatigue)

Table 2 shows an abbreviated sampling of the CTC and


Delphi standards used on casting features applicable to
the squeeze cast front knuckle. NADCA has recently
published a complete standard for application of features
and tolerances that may also be referenced.

6. Pot hole (Low cycle fatigue)


A typical finite element evaluation result is shown in Figure 1. As shown in the example, a finite model output is
representative of the structural requirements necessary
to support the vehicle loading of the component. Only

Table 2.

Feature Tolerance

Feature

Design 3

Standard

Basic Feature

0.5 typical, 0.3 possible, cross parting add


0.3 0.8

Draft

3 typical, 1 locators

Fillet

R6 typical, R2 possible

Radii

R3 typical, R1 possible

Parting Lines

Optimized for venting and prevention of flash

Slides and cores

Draft 3 typical

Design 2

Design 1

Design 3

Design 2
Design 1

The output from the DFM is shown in Figure 2. A comparison to the Figure 1 shows a design refined for castability
and ready for construction of prototype tooling. It is
important to note that the final design resulted in a mass
increase of 0.23 kilograms over the initial FEA model
(final weight of 2.73 kg). This is not uncommon (due to
draft, fillet, and rounds) and should be understood in the
early planning and costing stages.

Figure 3. Design Comparison

THE PROTOTYPE PROCESS


Initial prototypes for design validation were made from
high-grade aluminum castings. These types of prototypes
are not cost effective for volume production, however,
they do allow for test builds and design testing. Assembly interference can be identified and corrected prior to
hard tooling builds. Additionally, failure modes in bench
testing may direct changes in design to improve the
robustness.
Prototype hard tooling would normally be constructed for
second generation prototypes used to validate the process and continue validation testing. This tooling is constructed from lower grade tool steels and is therefore
considered disposable. The squeeze cast process, however, requires a high degree of toughness and thermal
shock resistance in tooling materials. Therefore, prototype hard tooling is not recommended. This increases the
importance of detailed up front design reviews limiting or
eliminating changes after tooling construction.

Figure 2. Finished Design


An additional challenge was introduced into the design
phase shortly after the program started. A second and
third design option was added for alternate vehicle platforms. The challenge was to standardize the design of
the component thereby minimizing the differences in tool
contruction, casting process development, and manufacturing of the front corner by Delphi Chassis System. The
standardization would be of particular benefit during the
launch phase of the front corner. An overlay of the second and third design options are shown in Figure 3.

Initial squeeze cast tooling is typically suitable for production application provided there are minimal design
changes subsequent to construction. Products produced
from first tools are therefore representative of production
processes. Process development is accelerated as well
since there are no unusual limitations placed on the process to protect an inferior grade tool material.

MATERIAL VALIDATION

could not be uniformly evaluated using standard mathematics for normally distributed data. Tensile, yield, elongation, and fatigue tests do not generally produce
normally distributed data, therefore, Weibull B1 analysis
was agreed upon as being the optimum statistical tool to
evaluate mechanical properties. The transition was made
more comfortable when it was understood that B1
approximates x-bar 3 sigma if the data is normally distributed. Phase three also confirmed that the two-cavity
vertical squeeze cast process was Weibull B1 capable to
the required properties shown in Table 1.

The two-cavity squeeze cast aluminum front knuckle was


a first. The newness of this product and process required
that CTC and Delphi perform a joint material development program. This program would define the material
properties of the vertical squeeze cast process and
define the variability of the properties with respect to process controls for casting and heat treat operations. The
material development program was conducted in five
phases.

Phase four defined the variability of multiple casting


machines and multiple heat treat systems across an
extended time frame. Phase four results are defined in
Table 4, Chart 2, and Table 5. The data shown is the
result of specific tailoring of the process to this part. The
tailoring of properties to the part (design) requirements is
a service found in state of the art foundry.

Phase one established a base line for mechanical properties during prototype production. Samples were pulled
from four locations for tensile and fatigue testing as noted
in Figure 4.

Table 4.

Mechanical Property Requirements

Property

Specification
Statistical
minimum

Capability
B1

Average

Tensile

276 MPa

307 MPa

329 MPa

Yield

207 MPa

231 MPa

259 MPa

Elongation

8%

8%

10.5 %

Fatigue
N = 107

70 MPa

90 MPa

103 MPa

Figure 4. Test Bar Location Map


300
280

Maximum Stress, Smax, Mpa

The data from phase one resulted in the selection of the


steering arm location for tensile, yield, and elongation
measurement and the caliper ear area of the center bore
was selected for fatigue measurement. These were identified based on the correlation of results to the finite element studies conducted earlier.
Phase two was a development of a base heat treat process to optimize the mechanical properties that are
offered by the vertical squeeze cast process. The base
standard established during validation is shown in Table 3.
Table 3.

Yield strength
259 Mpa (37.6 ksi)

260
240
220
200
180

Fatigue strength
103 Mpa (14.9 ksi)

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1.00E+03

Log(N) = 7.686 - 0.01523 (Smax)


Correlation coefficient = -0.9785

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

1.00E+08

Cycles to Failure, N

Chart 2.

Typical Heat Treat Process

SN Curve Squeeze Cast A356

Aluminum Association Recommended T6 Standard


Operation

Temperature

Table 5.

Time

Micro Structures Squeeze Cast A356

Solution

1000 F

12 hours

Feature

Measurement

Quench

Low as possible

Fast as possible

Grain Size

0.56 mm

Age

310 F

3 to 5 hours

Silicon Modification

Type 6 (AFS Std.)

Porosity Content

None Observed

Phase three defined the preliminary process capability


based on an extended production trial run on production
capable vertical squeeze cast equipment. During phase
three, it was identified that the mechanical properties

Dendrite Arm Spacing

1mm

13 m

(Spacing from cast surface)

8mm

28 m

DESIGN VALIDATION

Phase five of the material development program focused


on final heat treat development. Elements of phase five
included tuning of heat treat parameters and testing of
the established control limits. A flow chart of this phase is
shown in Chart 3.

Delphi validation of the front corner was in two phases.


First, the following lab testing was conducted to verify the
design and process.

During phase five, a detailed solution and age furnace


validation standard was established. The validation program requires that numerous thermocouples be strategically located throughout the furnace as shown in Figure
5. The readings from these thermocouples must provide
equal thermal profiles for three consecutive heat treat
loads prior to furnace release to production. The validation is repeated for any major maintenance repair or overhaul of the furnace. In addition, future optimization
programs will use the validation standard.

1. Panic brake (Low cycle fatigue)


2. Brake reaction fatigue (High cycle fatigue)
3. Severe cornering (Low cycle fatigue)
4. Cornering fatigue (High cycle fatigue)
5. Steering arm (High cycle fatigue)
6. Pot hole (Low cycle fatigue)
7. Multi-axis simulation of vehicle load cases
8. Ball stud draw-in / push out characteristics
9. Impact evaluation
Secondly, vehicle durability was conducted as a normal
platform program. No durability incidences were found
during either phase of validation testing.

PRE-LAUNCH STRATEGY
The pre-launch strategy was to use a production two-cavity die and process to insure validation integrity within the
development process. A dual path cast iron program was
also implemented to mitigate program risks. The cast iron
back-up program was active until the lab design validation was successfully completed.

Figure 5. Thermocouple Placement Map

HT Temper
Selection

GENERATION II DESIGN
Casting Technology Company and Delphi Chassis Systems began a redesign of the lightweight front knuckle in
late 1996. The redesign of the lightweight knuckle was
initiated to:

HT Equipment
Setting

Equipment
PPAP

HT Equipment
Adjustment

1. Reduce cast and finish weight


2. Improve upon design for manufacturability

HT Equipment
Verification

3. Eliminate spacers in caliper bolts by integrating feature in casting design


4. Reduce manufacturing costs by improved casting
and machining cycle rates
5. Reduce machining chips by improving near net
shape

HT Process
Selection

Weight reduction goals were to be met without sacrifice


to product durability, without impact to locators, and without changes to assembly connection points. The original
finite element study was referenced to identify areas
where loading was minimal. The resulting design
reduced product weight.

HT Process
Modification

Process
PPAP

HT Process
Verification

Improvements in manufacturability include the relocation


of parting lines to improve machining fixture clearance
and improvements to increase die life. These changes
were minor with respect to the effect on the as shipped
design and were generated by VA/VE (Value Analysis
Value Engineering) meetings between CTC and their
tooling manufacturer.

Approved
Production

Chart 3.

Heat Treat Process Development

SUMMARY

Spacers were added to the caliper bolts to improve the


joint design. This added unnecessary cost to the front
corner assembly. The spacer feature could be integrated
into the casting design with minimal impact on the part
weight. The final integrated joint design performance
exceeded the original spacer design based on laboratory
validation comparisons.

The Squeeze Cast Aluminum Front Knuckle program is


considered to have been a success. The original design
objectives were met with respect to weight, durability,
performance, and cost effectiveness. The program has
proved the viability of aluminum front knuckles for high
volume applications on mainstream passenger vehicles.
To date, Delphi Chassis Systems and Casting Technology have jointly produced over two million lightweight
front corners of the current design.

The reduced weight of the part allowed for an improvement in casting cycle rate. The savings offset the cost of
the tooling.
The near net shape improvements reduced the amount
of chips generated by machining operations. Typically,
melt loss associated with reprocessing of machining
chips is three to four times higher than the melt loss for
bulk aluminum. This concept is a primary driving force for
near net designs by casting foundries.

The lighter weight knuckle is under evaluation to take full


advantage of the benefits of the vertical squeeze cast
process (low weight, high strength, near net, and consistent quality). Both Generation II and III will further
improve the cost effectiveness of the aluminum front
knuckle and front corner assembly.

The current design for this lighter weight front knuckle is


shown in Figure 7. All concepts discussed are also available for optional designs. The casting is currently under
review for performance improvements.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1. Patrick Cheng Metallurgist, Casting Technology
Company
2. Craig Conaty - Engineering Manager, Casting Technology Company
3. Jim Kahrhoff Process Engineer, Casting Technology Company
4. Michael Martyniak Sr. Project Engineer, Delphi
Chassis Systems
5. Mike Waldrop Sr. Process Engineer, Delphi Chassis Systems
6. John Martis Sr. Quality Engineer, Delphi Chassis
Systems

Figure 7. Optimization Concept Design

7. Daniel Perry Sr. Diagnostician, Delphi Chassis Systems

GENERATION III DESIGN

8. Tom Lier Systems Engineer, Delphi Chassis Systems

Additional design changes are planned to provide a more


near net shape that reduces or eliminates machining
operations by Delphi Chassis. The improvements in near
net are the result of the superior casting dimensional
control and cast surface finish provided by the squeeze
cast process. The goal is to eliminate the machining of
counter bores, caliper ears, and ball joint surfaces to provide clean smooth bolt contact surfaces.

REFRENSES
1. The Aluminum Association, Standards for Aluminum Sand
and Permanent Mold Castings

Вам также может понравиться