Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue
Abstract
The influence of casting defects on static and fatigue strength is investigated for a high pressure die cast aluminium alloy. Defects
exist in gas and shrinkage pores as well as cold fills, dross and alumina skins. For the three batches of specimens, differing for
the spruerunner design, the influence was straightforward, while no significant variation in the fatigue strength was observed when
looking at batches of acceptable and non-acceptable components, as judged within the foundry quality control. In this case,
defects count for their size and location, while quality control often takes no account for component working conditions. The Haigh
diagram shows a good matching between the specimen reference material and the component fatigue data. 2001 Elsevier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Die casting; Porosity; Casting defects; Fatigue; Aluminium
1. Introduction
High pressure die casting is widely used for the possibility of obtaining net to shape components of complex
geometry at high production rates. A disadvantage of the
technology is the almost inevitable presence of shrinkage
cavities, often coupled with other defects: cold fills, alumina skins, dross, entrapped air bubbles [1]. The influence of casting defects on the material properties of cast
aluminium alloys has been investigated by a number of
authors [210], with porosity being the most common
defect encountered. In literature data [25], the influence
of casting defects on static strength appears to be generally modest (i.e. of the order of some percentage points).
More important variations are observed for the elongation at rupture [3].
The influence of casting defects on fatigue strength
has been studied under constant-amplitude, variableamplitude and simulated in-service conditions. It is gen-
0142-1123/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 2 - 1 1 2 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 1 2 - 8
(1)
r (kg/m3)
f
A0
A2
A4
2730
0
2570
0.059
2230
0.183
Table 1
Chemical composition of the aluminium alloy used in the study (% by weight)
EN AC 4600
Si
Cu
Fe
Zn
Mn
Mg
Ni
Ti
Pb
9.83
811.1
2.99
24
0.98
0.61.1
1.11
1.2
0.19
0.55
0.04
0.05
0.064
0.55
0.052
0.25
0.19
0.35
It is commonly acknowledged that the concept of endurance limit loses its significance when aluminium and
other non-ferrous materials are considered as well as
when components are subjected to variable amplitude
loading, as it is always the case in real components. In
view of evaluating the influence of porosity for specimens and production components, fatigue strength was
evaluated at a conventional and sufficiently high number
of cycles for sake of comparison. Moreover, preliminary
tests run on the A0 batch showed a limited difference
between the fatigue strength at 107 cycles and the fatigue
strength at 2106 cycles [14]. This result is in accordance
with the broadly accepted view that a nearly flat SN
curve is to be expected for materials for which there is
little difference between yield strength and endurance
limit [4], as is the case for the alloy used in this study.
A second series of fatigue tests was run on industrial
components taken from the foundry production line. The
components were tested in as cast conditions (i.e. with
as cast surface). The only modification to the cast surface
was the trimming of the overpress corresponding to the
half mould. Fig. 3 shows the geometry and shape of the
alternator support used in the study. Two batches of
components were tested. The two batches group acceptable and non-acceptable components respectively, as
judged from the on-line radioscopic inspection made
within the foundry quality control. The inspection is
made by a skilled technician who decides whether the
level of porosity in the component is acceptable or nonacceptable for the foundry standards. A total of 42 supports were tested in fatigue, 18 for the acceptable batch
and 24 for the non-acceptable batch.
Prior to testing, all components were subjected to Xray examination. One component of each batch was also
examined through computed tomography (CT scan).
Shrinkage and gas pores were observed for components
of both batches. For components classified as non-
Fig. 3.
study.
Table 3
Results for the static tensile tests run on specimens. Reported standard data are minimum values (UNI EN 1706)
EN AC 46000
A0
A2
A4
140
240
1
70
150
275
2.1
65
140
250
1.4
50
110
150
0.85
Fig. 4.
Table 4
Fatigue strength data at 2106 cycles for standard specimens
Fig. 5.
A0
A2
A4
152
4.9
96
6.5
76
5.8
respect, in the case of this study, pores are mainly concentrated in the middle part of the resisting section and
scarcely provide sites for fatigue crack initiation. On the
contrary, defects as alumina skins, dross and above all
cold fills are effective weak points at the surface.
3.2. Data on production components
Fig. 6.
980).
to the bottom hole (Fig. 8(a) and (b)) and one inside the
central hole (Fig. 8(c)).
Experimental fatigue tests resulted mainly in one
region of failure, corresponding to the central hole (Fig.
9(a)). In the following, this region will be referred to as
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
(2)
(s as a) +(s as a) +(s as a)
2
1
(3)
Fig. 9.
Table 5
Modified stair-case sequence for acceptable components
Maximum load
(kN)
11.5
11.0
10.5
10.0
9
XO
XO
XO
OO
OO
OO
XX
OO
OO
Table 6
Modified stair-case sequence for non-acceptable components
Maximum load
(kN)
11.0
10.5
10.0
9.5
XO
XO
OO
10
11
12
XO
OO
XX
XO
OO
XO
XO
OO
OO
Table 7
Comparison between the fatigue maximum load at 2106 cycles found for acceptable and non-acceptable components
Acceptable components
Non-acceptable components
R(50%) (kN)
R(10%) (kN)
R(90%) (kN)
10.84
10.50
11.22
10.83
10.25
10.00
Fig. 11. Fatigue strength data for the production component. The Haigh diagram is traced with data obtained for the A0 specimens (square data
points). The diamond data points are for the production component and refer to a probability of survival of 10, 50 and 90%.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the European Union
under contract no BRST-CT98-5328. The authors would
like to thank Ing. M. Albertinazzi for helping with the
[9] Seniw ME, Fine ME, Chen EY, Meshli M, Gray J. Relationship
of defect size and location to failure in Al alloy A356 cast specimens, Paris International Symposium Fatigue of Materials. TMSASM Fall Meeting, 1997.
[10] Couper MJ, Nesson AE, Griffiths JR. Casting defects and the
fatigue behaviour of an aluminium casting alloy. Fat Fract Eng
Mat Struct 1990;13(3):21327.
[11] Seniw ME, Conley JG, Fine ME. The effect of microscopic
inclusion locations and silicon segregation on fatigue lifetimes of
aluminum alloy A356 castings. Mat Sci Engng Part A
2000;285:438.
[12] Standard Reference Radiographs for Inspection of Aluminum and
Magnesium Die Casting, ASTM E 505-96. Annual book of
ASTM standards. American Society for Testing and Materials.
[13] Standard Reference Radiographs for Inspection of Aluminum and
Magnesium Casting, ASTM E 155-79. Annual book of ASTM
standards. American Society for Testing and Materials.
[14] Avalle M, Belingardi G, Cavatorta MP. Static and fatigue
strength of a die cast aluminium alloy under different feeding
conditions. Presented at EUROMAT 2001, Rimini 1014 June
2001.
[15] Goglio L, Rossetto M. Elaborazione e confronto di dati di fatica,
Quaderno AIAS n. 1, Milano, 22 November 1995:3549.
[16] Fuchs HO, Stephens RI. Metal fatigue in engineering. New York:
J. Wiley and Sons, 1980.
[17] Collins MS. Failure of materials in mechanical design. New
York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1981.