Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1313–1321
DOI 10.1007/s00170-012-4102-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A mathematical model for prediction of microporosity
in aluminum alloy A356
Ahmad Bahmani & Nader Hatami & Naser Varahram &
Parviz Davami & Mohsen Ostad Shabani
Received: 14 May 2011 / Accepted: 13 February 2012 / Published online: 26 April 2012
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012
Abstract In the present work, a mathematical model was
developed based on finite difference method to predict the
microporosity distribution in A356 aluminum alloy casting.
Heat, mass, and gas conservation equations were solved in
this model. Moreover, Darcy’s equation was considered in
the mushy zone. Results show that the distribution and
concentration of microporosities in cast parts vary with both
cooling rate and initial gas content. Simulation results were
compared with experimental data where proportionally
good agreement with experimental results was found. Final-
ly, a complex cast part was simulated presenting the ability
of the model to predict the porosities in industrial cast parts.
Keywords Modeling . Simulation . Microporosity . Gas
segregation . Dendrite arm spacing
1 Introduction
It is well- known that the mechanical properties of castings
such as ultimate tensile strength and fatigue strength are
mainly affected by the existence of porosities [1]. So, un-
derstanding the location and amount of porosities is very
useful to avoid sudden drop of mechanical properties.
A. Bahmani (*) : N. Varahram : P. Davami
Department of Materials Engineering,
Sharif University of Technology,
Tehran, Iran
e-mail: ahmad.bahmani@gmail.com
N. Hatami
Razi Metallurgical Research Center,
Tehran, Iran
M. O. Shabani
Materials and Energy Research Center (MERC),
Tehran, Iran
Generally, porosities are formed by two mechanisms
being gas segregation and solidification shrinkage which
occur concomitantly [1–4]. Liquid entrapped in the cast part
during the solidification is potentially able to form porosity.
Since dissolved gas ejects into these zones, the melt density
decreases during the solidification and entrapped liquid
cannot be fed which results in porosity formation.
Porosities are classified by their size and dominant mech-
anism of formation. In connection with size, micro- and
macroporosities can be used. Microporosities nucleate in
entrapped liquid between dendrite arms (they are formed
because of gas precipitation and lack of feeding), and mac-
roporosities occur in bulk of entrapped liquid either inside
the cast part known as closed shrinkages or top of the
surface of the cast part called pipe shrinkages. Based on
formation mechanism, they are classified into gas and
shrinkage porosities. Gas porosities are spherical and
shrinkage porosities are dendritic.
The stages of microporosity formation in long freezing-
range alloys are explained schematically in Fig. 1. In the
first stage, the pore nucleates on heterogeneous nucleation
sites (such as an oxide particle surface), then it grow spher-
ically by gas precipitation. In the next stage, growing mi-
crostructure limits the pore growth. Hence, the pore is
deformed into a dendritic-shaped one. After the mentioned
stages, pores grow adjacent to eutectic phase due to density
increase (volume shrinkage) of the eutectic phase.
Porosity models are classified into two groups: indirect
and direct methods. Indirect models [5–9] are based on a
parameter representing the pattern of solidification; they
evaluate the probability of microporosity formation in dif-
ferent zones of the casting. These models, whose critical
values are found by experiments, consider just a part of
solidification concept. Although indirect models do not
completely consider the principles of solidification phenom-
enon, due to simple programming and analysis, casting
simulation packages usually use some of these parameters
1314
Fig. 1 Various stages of pore development: a just after nucleation on
an oxide particle/inclusion, b during initial growth (constant radius), c
later on, during growth (variable radius), and d when it is constrained
by the dendrite arms [3]
such as Niyama criterion. Direct models involve princi-
ples of solidification and mass conservation. In direct
methods, three concepts including liquid pressure drop,
gas precipitation and solidification shrinkage should be
considered [2–4, 10–12].
Kubo and Pehlke [13] presented a two-dimensional mod-
el for prediction of microporosity formation in Al–4.5Cu
alloy and low alloy steel castings. They considered the
effects of both gas precipitation during solidification and
the pressure drop due to the feeding resistance of the mushy
zone. In their model, three separate situations for nucleation
and growth of porosity were considered including, the stage
in which the porosity has not nucleated, the one in which the
porosity nucleated but the fluid flux is positive, and the last
one which occurs when the porosity has been nucleated but
fluid flux is negative. The last one illustrates the situation of
porosity growth. Their model has been implemented in a
two-dimensional domain and was one of the most important
works in this field. Pequet et al. [3] combined Darcy’s law
and mass conservation equation for both fluid and hydrogen
in one equation. Due to complexity of this equation, they
used a linearization method to simplify the solution. The
effects of macroshrinkages on the distribution of micro-
porosities were taken into account. The combination of the
macroporosity and microporosity models has increased the
resemblance of microporosity distribution to reality. Sabau
and Viswanathan [10] applied the momentum equation to
simulate the interdendritic flow, which has been rarely used
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1313–1321
by other researchers. According to their opinion, simulation
of fluid flow will make precise the calculation of fluid
pressure and therefore microporosity distribution. They also
took the Forchheimer’s term into account to obtain the drag
coefficient.
However, despite all efforts to develop models to simu-
late microporosities, due to complexity and effects of variety
of factors on formation of these defects, modeling of all
tangling factors is too difficult and time-costly in industrial
cases. So, some of the models take into account just simple
factors affecting the formation of porosities like casting
geometry, solidification time, cooling rate and thermal gra-
dients. In the present work, applying a model which has
enough accuracy and performance to be used in complex
geometries is attempted. At the end of the paper, the results
of the model in an automotive wheel are compared with
experiments where it presents the model capability to pre-
dict porosities distribution in complex geometries.
2 Governing equations
We developed the present model based on the main phe-
nomena affecting the porosity formation. In this section, the
governing equations of the present model and parameters
used are explained and in the next Section 3 the algorithm
that uses these equations is explained.
2.1 Permeability
Fluid permeability demonstrates the ability of a fluid to flow
through a porous medium. This parameter is a function of
fluid viscosity, solid fraction, and microstructure [10]. Due
to the importance of this parameter in microporosity predic-
tion, in the last decades, several attempts have been made to
evaluate this parameter [14–21]. The most famous equation
to measure the permeability in a porous medium, the
Kozeny–Carmen equation [22], can be written as follows:
ð 1  gs Þ 3
K¼ ð1Þ
Kc Sv2
Where Sv is the specific solid/liquid interfacial area (i.e.,
surface area of the solid per unit volume of the sample), gS is
the volume fraction of solid and kc is the Kozeny–Carmen
constant, which takes on various values depending on the
characteristics of the porous medium. For equiaxed solidi-
fication growth of aluminum alloys, kc 05 and Sv 06gS/λ2
can be used, in which λ2 is secondary dendrite arm spacing
[23]. Using Eq. 1, Sv has some deficiencies as follows:
(a) If there is no solid phase (gS 00), permeability will be
infinite.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1313–1321 1315

(b) If gS tends to 1, permeability will be zero and this
shows a conflict with Darcy equation.
To solve this problem, Kubo and Pehlke [13] used two
thresholds of solid fraction as 0.01 and 0.7. Outside this
range, solid fraction is fixed. For example if gS 00.8 then gS
will be replaced by 0.7 and if gS 00.005 then gS is set to
0.01. Sabau and Viswanathan [10] believe that for compu-
tation of Eq. 1 from stereological studies Sv can be written as
Sv 04/λ2. For A356 aluminum alloy, an isothermal ternary
eutectic reaction occurs at a 0.05 (liquid fraction) and co-
herency point for the alloy is 0.4 of solid fraction. They
introduced the permeability equation as:
( and Pm are also atmospheric and metallostatic pressures,
Sv ¼ ð10:6
gs
Þ l2 ; gs > 0:4
4 respectively.
Sv ð gs ; l2 Þ ¼
Sv ¼ l42 ; gs < 0:4
8
< K ¼ ð1gs Þ2 ; g < 0:05 ð2Þ
s 2.3 Gas conservation
K ð gs ; l2 Þ ¼ 5Sv 2
: K ¼ 0:0522 ; gs  0:4
5Sv
Kurz and Fisher [24] demonstrated that secondary dendrite
arm spacing (λ2) is proportional to the local solidification time
with power of 0.33, Eq. 3. This was confirmed by other
researchers who reported a modified version of this correla-
tion based on experimental findings [4, 10, 13, 23–25].
l2 ¼ atfb ð3Þ
Where, tf is the local solidification time, and “a” and “b”
are composition-dependent constants.
2.2 Pressure drop in mushy zone
Fluid flow through a porous medium can cause a pressure
drop and a decrease in the fluid velocity. In mushy zone,
dendrite arms act as a porous medium. This behavior can be
described by Darcy’s equation [2–4, 11, 13, 26].
K [H]S 0kh[H]L, in which kh is a partition coefficient set using
ul ¼ ðgradPl  ρl gÞ ð4Þ
μgl
Where K is the fluid permeability, μ is the dynamic viscos-
ity of liquid defined in Eq. 5, ρL is the liquid density, g is the
gravity vector and PL is the local pressure of liquid set initially
by Eq. 6.
 
Eμ
μ ¼ μ0 exp ð5Þ
RT
Pl ¼ Pa þ Pm ð6Þ
where μ0, Eμ, and R are the viscosity of liquid at very
high temperatures, activation energy and universal gas
constant, respectively. In modeling, these values are set
based on Table 1. Here, T is the temperature in Kelvin. Pa
The gas solubility in the solid is much lower than in liquid
and therefore during the solidification, dissolved gas in the
solid is ejected into the remaining liquid. The growth rate of
the pores depends on the amount of gas diffusion into the
liquid. Considering the fact that hydrogen diffusion is at
least three orders of magnitude higher than other gases [1]
and since hydrogen is the most important source of micropo-
rosity evolution in aluminum alloys [2–4, 10, 12, 13, 23, 27],
gas conservation equation can be written as follows:
agp Pg
ρL ½H0 ¼ ρs gs ½Hs þ ρL gL ½HL þ ð7Þ
T
where, ρ, g, and [H], are the density, volume fraction
and hydrogen content respectively and 0, L, S, P, and g
indices indicate initial, liquid, solid, porosity and gas
respectively. α is the gas conversion factor and Pg is
the gas pressure.
The relationship between [H]S and [H]L is as follows:
Table 1. [H]L is related to the gas pressure by Sievert’s
equation as follows:
pffiffiffiffiffi
½ H l ¼ Kl Pi ð8Þ

Table 1 Material properties

used in the present simulation Property Nomenclature Value Unit References

Viscosity at high temperatures μ0 5.36×10−4 Pa s [3]

activation energy Eμ 1.65×104 J mole−1 [3]
Universal gas constant R 8.3144 J mole−1°K−1 —
Partition coefficient Kh 0.057 – [4]
Sievert coefficient KL 0.69 – [4]
Liquidus temperature TL 613 °C [29]
Solidus temperature TS 542 °C [29]
Surface tension between pore and liquid σpL 0.9 J m−1 [3]
1316 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1313–1321

In this equation, Pi is non-dimensional gas pressure and is mushy zone and gas pressure applied by segregation of gas
calculated as Pi 0Pg/Pa, where Pa is the atmospheric pressure from solidifying liquid.
and KL is the hydrogen solubility. First, in order to estimate thermal distribution and solid-
Gas pressure (Pg) is related to the local pressure and ification pattern in the solution method, heat conservation
capillary effect through Eq. 9. equation is solved by an explicit scheme. In any time step,
the domain is counted in three directions. If any node’s
Pg ¼ Pl þ Pσ ð9Þ
temperature falls below the liquidus, the secondary dendrite
Where Pσ represents surface tension, and is calculated as arm spacing is calculated by Eq. 3 with “a” and “b” con-
Pσ 0σPL (1/r1 +1/r2), in which σPL is the surface tension stants of 10.2×10−6 and 0.33, respectively. Moreover, per-
between pore and liquid and r1 and r2 are principal radii of meability in the mushy zone and pore radius are calculated
curvature. Assuming the porosities spherical, we will have from Eqs. 2 and 11, respectively.
r1 0r2 0r and therefore Pσ can be calculated as: Here, the pressure and microporosity distribution in
the cast part are being obtained by developing Kubo’s
2σPl
Pσ ¼ ð10Þ 2D-algorithm [5]. In the present work, the Kubo’s 2D-
r algorithm has been extended to 3D. In addition, since
Radius of porosity is a function of microstructure. In the pressure distribution has a significant effect on the
majority of cases, this radius is expressed as a function of porosity distribution, a subroutine to check the pressure
dendrite arm spacing [2, 4]: convergence has been added to the calculation. Some
modifications have been also incorporated, such as dif-
l2
r¼ ð11Þ ferent thermo-physical properties (density, heat conduc-
4 tivity and specific hat capacity) for liquid and solid
In this equation, secondary dendrite arm spacing can be phases and variable metal/mold interface heat transfer
calculated from Eq. 3. coefficients.
Numerical method for solving the porosity distribution
is implemented as shown in Fig. 2. Here, the numerical
2.4 Continuity method to solve the pressure distribution and porosity
fraction includes three steps. In the first step, porosity
Continuity or mass conservation equation can be expressed has not been formed while in the second, it has been
by Eq. 12 [28]. formed and is also fed by liquid. But in the third step
which shows the growth, while porosity has been formed
@ρ
þ divðρuÞ ¼ 0 ð12Þ it is not fed by liquid.
@t
After calculating the permeability, secondary dendrite
In this equation, ρ is the average density and can be arm spacing and pore radius for nodes located on mushy
written as ρ0ρsgs + ρlgl + ρpgp and u is the velocity vector. zone, the program checks the volume fraction of porosities
Considering no motion of solid and pore phases, u can be (gp). The positive value of a porosity fraction indicates the
written as glul. Knowing that gs + gp + gl 01 and substitution formation of porosity. With no porosity formed, the gas
of Eq. 4 for “u” (Eq. 4 into Eq. 12), continuity equation is pressure is solved by Eq. 9, considering the local pressure
re-written as follows: of previous time step. Then, the new amount of porosity is
  calculated from Eq. 7. If the porosity is formed, when the
@ρ @gp k
 ρl þ ρ1 div  ðgradPl  ρl gÞ ¼ 0 ð13Þ interdendritic fluid flux is positive, the porosity content will
@t @t μgl
be obtained using the same method.
Where ρ ¼ ρl gl þ ρs gs But when the porosity has been formed and the flux of
interdendritic fluid is negative, porosity is calculated from
Eq. 13 by the explicit scheme using local pressure of previous
time step. Here, gas pressure is calculated based on Eq. 7.
3 Numerical method However, according to the algorithm, if initially the
porosity or the pressure must be calculated, the Eq. (13)
The present model of microporosity formation is based on should be solved. This equation can be discretized as
five different pressures that affect the formation of this follows:
defect comprising the atmosphere and metallostatic pres- h o
P iþ1;j;k þPo i1;j;k 2Po i;j;k
gp n ¼ gp o þ ρ ρρ  ρl KΔt
n o
sures (or local pressure that preliminary applied via the fluid μ ΔX 2 þ
l
i ð14Þ
flow modeling), the pressure applied due to surface tension P i;jþ1;k þP i;j1;k 2P i;j;k
o o o
P o
þP i;j;k1 2P i;j;k
o o

ΔY 2 þ i;j;kþ1 ΔZ 2
between a pore and neighboring liquid, pressure drop in the
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1313–1321 1317

Start an automotive wheel. The casting conditions of both models

are explained hereafter.

4.1 Cup-shaped casting

Nodes Counting
The cup-shaped casting configurations and dimensions
based on Zhu et al. experiments [4] are shown in Fig. 3.
Mushy zone? The microporosity and microstructure distributions have
Yes been measured using an image analysis technique. Initial
hydrogen contents were measured by LECO RH-analyzer
Calc. PLn andPg Porosity formed? with two different values (0.05 and 0.137 cc/100 g Al).
Sampling has been performed along the symmetry axis. It
Yes
should be mentioned that the reported data by Zhu et al.
Calc. gp Interdendritic flow < 0 [4] are between 0.048 to 0.053 cc/100 g Al for the
minimum range. But here, we used 0.05 cc/100 g Al as
Yes
an average value for the simulation and presentation of
Set PLn=PLo; Calc. gp andPg experimental data.

4.1.1 Porosity distribution

Calc. PLn
Simulation and experimental results of porosity distribution
in the cup-shaped part from bottom to top are presented in
Domain completed? Figs. 3 and 4 for initial gas contents of 0.05 cc/100 gr Al and
0.137 cc/100 gr Al, respectively. As it can be seen, in both
Yes
cases, there is a relatively good agreement between the
Has pressure converged? simulation and experiments. It seems also that the porosity
distribution is proportional to the cooling rate, as in the
Yes lower parts of casting the porosity content is lower. This
Finish behavior shows the effect of solidification time on the
porosity formation. In high cooling rates, the time is short
Fig. 2 Flowchart of program for computation of pressure and porosity enough for segregation of dissolved gases (from the solid
in each time step into the remained liquid); meanwhile, pore growth is
limited.

Here, indices i, j and k indicate the position of a node in x, y

and z directions, respectively, and Δt is the simulation time
step.
Finally, the program checks the convergence of pressure
by an error function. The described procedure is repeated in
each time step.
The metallostatic and atmospheric pressures were used as
initial conditions. This model could also join with mold
filling process where initial pressure and temperature distri-
bution required to be set initially by the results of Navier–
Stocks and heat solution during filling. No-slip condition is
used in the boundaries of liquid (0≤gS <1) and solids (gS 01)
or liquid and molds.

4 Results and Discussion

To compare of the simulation results with real cast parts, two Fig. 3 Cup-shaped model used to validate the simulation model Zhu et
models have been employed being a cup-shaped casting and al. [4]. Numbers are in millimeters
1318 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1313–1321

1.E-04
2 = 16 µm
1.E-06

Permeability (m-2)
2 = 35 µm
1.E-08
2 = 48 µm
1.E-10

1.E-12

1.E-14

1.E-16
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Solid Fraction (-)

Fig. 6 Permeability of liquid during the solidification, for three dif-

ferent microstructures

of SDAS prediction has high effects on the accuracy of the

Fig. 4 Porosity contents along the part centerline, comparison be-
tween simulation and experimental results where initial hydrogen
content equals a 0.05 cc/100 g Al and b 0.137 cc/100 g Al
4.1.2 SDAS and Permeability
Secondary dendrite arm spacing (SDAS or λ2) indicates the
tortuosity of mushy zone through liquid flow. The radius of
porosity is also related to this parameter. Then the accuracy
simulation of microporosities. Figure 5 shows the experi-
mental and present simulation results of secondary dendrite
arm spacing through the centerline of the part. As it seems in
Fig. 5, in the upper locations, secondary dendrites have
grown more; hence the pores located here are larger than
the pores close to the chill.
The SDAS depends on the solidification time as
expressed by Eq. 3. Considering the agreement between
simulation and experimental results of secondary dendrite
arm spacing in various cooling rates, it can be said that the
thermal conditions of experiments are appropriately simu-
lated in the present work.
As it can be seen in the experimental results of Fig. 5,
SDAS values have been decreased by increasing the con-
tents of initial gas. This behavior has not been reported in
other researches [4, 10, 13, 23, 24]. Moreover, the simula-
tion results seem to predict an approximate average of both
gas contents.

60 Permanent Mold

Melt
50
Secondary Dendrite Arm

40
Spacing (µm)

30

20 Present Simulation
H0 = 0.10 cc/100 g Al
10
H0 = 0.137 cc/100 g Al

0
0 20 40 60 80
Distance from the Chill (mm) Insulator

Fig. 5 Secondary dendrite arm spacing along the part centerline in-
cluding present simulation and data of Zhu et al. experiments [4] Fig. 7 Solid model of the car wheel showing the casting parts
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1313–1321 1319

Fig. 8 Porosity distribution in

section plane of the car wheel
a b
determined from a experimental
results, and b simulation results.
In experimental results three
positions show the
microporosities whose
positions are simulated by high
values of microporosity content
in b
2

3 1

To evaluate the permeability inside the casting, the per-
meability of three different points as bottom, center and top
of the casting with different microstructures have been plot-
ted in Fig. 6. For a constant solid fraction, permeability in
fine microstructures is smaller than that of coarser struc-
tures. This shows that in fine structures the liquid flow
through the mushy zone is quite difficult. It may be imag-
ined that due to difficult feeding of fluid through the mushy
zone, the potential of porosity formation in finer structures is
higher. But, the time of diffusion of gas in the entrapped
liquid in finer structures is more limited than coarser struc-
tures and hence porosity nucleation is lower.
Considering Fig. 4, at the initial stages of solidification
(for a solid fraction about 0.015 for 16 μm SDAS and 0.01
for 48 μm), during the formation of preliminary solid nuclei,
the permeability of liquid decreases abruptly. Here, the
permeability values decrease by106 times. This sudden
change causes to a sudden drop in pressure and may cause
the pressure convergence to get into difficulty during the
program solution. By evolution of solidification front in the
second stage, the permeability will be decreased by an
upwind curvature until the coherency point. Here, the rate
of permeability drop decreases. At the third stage, that is to
say after the solid fraction of 0.4, due to coherency of
dendrites, the curvature turns to downwind and the drop
rate increases. It shows that the flow of melt through the
dendrites in this stage will get into difficulty by increasing
the solid fraction. According to Wisvanathan [23], the final
eutectic transformation takes place at the solid fraction of
0.95, so the permeability at the end of solidification is
constant for each cooling rate.
4.2 Automotive wheel casting
To evaluate the model in complex parts, an automotive
wheel was simulated by the present program. The present
model was coupled with SUTCAST simulation software.
Here, the enmeshment and fluid flow results including pres-
sure and temperature distribution were exported by the
SUTCAST software. These exported data are imported by

Fig. 9 Pressure distribution

during the solidification, a after
a b
24 s, and b after 36 s from the
beginning of the solidification

Microporosity Location
1320
the present program as initial conditions. The cross section
of the above-mentioned part is shown along with its casting
system in Fig. 7. The molten metal was A356 poured against
the gravity vector with 720°C into the steel H13 mold.
Figure 8a and b, present the positions of porosity forma-
tion in real casting and simulation.
As it can be seen that the simulation (Fig. 8b) predicts the
position of the microporosities with a high precision in this
sample. The position marked by number 1 in Fig. 8a illus-
trates the porosity that its percentage is certainly higher than
predicted (Fig. 8b). It should be noticed that the sizes and
volume percents of these pores are high enough to be named
as macropores. In spite of large contents of porosity pre-
dicted in this location, the predicted values are not large
enough as it seems in real part. This is occurred because of
not taking the formation of macropores (which form in a
bulk entrapped liquid) in simulation into account. In fact in a
bulk liquid entrapped by a mushy zone front, a macropore
will be formed. In these mushy zones a lot of micropores
also nucleate and grow beside a macropore. So the predicted
position just presents the microporosities formed near a
macropore.
To describe how the porosities have been formed in these
locations, the pressure distribution at two time sections is
given in Fig. 9. As it can be seen, there is a high-pressure
gradient at that position. Also the pressure of that region is
higher than that of the neighbors. Due to this reason, this
position acts as a feeder resulting in liquid leakage.
5 Conclusions
A 3D mathematical model was developed to trace the process
of solidification and porosity formation. In the present model,
effective parameters on porosity formation are considered
including initial gas content in liquid and its distribution
during the solidification, metal shrinkage, liquid feeding in
the mushy zone, local pressure, and pores’ surface tension.
Simulation by the present model is compared with exper-
imental results published earlier and also porosity distribu-
tion was compared to results obtained from a real case (an
automotive wheel part).
Finally, the principal conclusions from this work are
summarized as below:
1. Evolution of solid increases the complexity of liquid
path for feeding and decreases the permeability of the
liquid severely.
2. Increasing the cooling rate results in finer structures and
increases the resistance of mushy zone against the liquid
flow.
3. Porosity distribution depends on cooling rate; in those
areas close to the chill where cooling rate is high,
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1313–1321
porosities are finer and their concentration decreases.
This is because of limitation of gas diffusion and pore
growth.
4. The present model can be applied to complex parts with
a large number of meshes where a good agreement
between simulation and experiments can be achieved.
Acknowledgment This project was supported by Razi Metallurgical
Research Center (RMRC), SUTCAST Simulation team, and Sharif
University of Technology. The authors are especially thankful to Ms.
K. Asgari at RMRC for her helpful supports.
References
1. Campbell J (2000) Casting. Butterworth Heinemann, United
Kingdom
2. Zou J, Shivkumar S, Apelin D (1990) Modeling of microstructure
evolution and microporosity formation in cast aluminum alloys.
AFS Trans 98:897–904
3. Pequet Ch, Gremaud M, Rappaz M (2002) Modeling of micropo-
rosity, macroporosity, and pipe-shrinkage formation during the
solidification of alloys using a mushy-zone refinement method:
applications to aluminum alloys. Met Mat Trans A 33:2095–2106
4. Zhu JD, Cockcroft SL, Maijer DM (2006) Modeling of micropo-
rosity formation in A356 aluminum alloy casting. Met Mat Trans
A 37:1075–1085
5. Hanzel JG, Keverian J (1965) The theory and application of a
digital computer in predicting solidification patterns. J Met 5:83–
91
6. Imafuku I, Chijiwa K (1983) A mathematical model for shrinkage
cavity prediction in steel casting. AFS Trans 91:527–540
7. Pellini WS (1953) Factors which determine riser accuracy and
feeding range. AFS Trans 61:61–80
8. Niyama E, Morikawa M (1981) Prediction shrinkage in large steel
casting from temperature gradient calculation. Int Cast Met J 6
(2):16–22
9. Lee YW et al (1990) Modeling of feeding behavior of solidifica-
tion Al–7Si–0.3Mg alloy plate casting. Met Trans B 21:715–722
10. Sabau AS, Viswanathan S (2002) Microporosity prediction in
aluminum alloy castings. Met Mat Trans B 33:243–255
11. Katzarov IH (2003) Finite element modeling of the porosity for-
mation in castings. Int J Heat Mass Transf 46:1545–1552
12. Atwood RC, Lee PD (2002) A three-phase model of hydrogen
pore formation during the equiaxed dendritic solidification of
aluminum–silicon alloys. Met Mat Trans B 33:209–221
13. Kubo K, Pehlke RD (1985) Mathematical modeling of porosity
formation in solidification. Met Trans B 16:359–366
14. Apelian D, Flemings MC, Mehrabian R (1974) Specific perme-
ability of partially solidified dendritic networks of Al–Si alloys.
Metall Trans B 5:2533–2537
15. Murakami K, Okamoto T (1984) Fluid flow in the mushy zone
composed of granular grains. Acta Metall 32:1741–1744
16. Poirier DR, Ocansey P (1993) Permeability for flow of liquid
through equiaxial mushy zones. Matls Sci Eng A 171:231–
240
17. Brown SGR, Spittle JA, Jarvis DJ, Walden-Bevan R (2002)
Numerical determination of liquid flow permeabilities for equiaxed
dendritic structures. Acta Mater 50:1559–1569
18. Mirbagheri SMH, Chirazi A (2006) Simulation of interden-
dritic liquid permeability for low and high solid fractions
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 64:1313–1321
during the solidification of mushy alloys. Mat Sci Eng A
427:51–59
19. Bernard D, Nielsen O, Salvo L, Cloetens P (2005) Permeabil-
ity assessment by 3D interdendritic flow simulations on
microtomography mappings of Al–Cu alloys. Mat Sci Eng A
392:112–120
20. Khajeh E, Mirbagheri SMH, Davami P (2008) Modeling of per-
meability with the aid of 3D interdendritic flow simulation for
equiaxed dendritic structures. Mat Sci Eng A 475:355–364
21. Santos R, Melo MLNM (2005) Permeability of interdendritic
channels. Mat Sci Eng A 391:151–158
22. Carman PC (1937) Fluid flow through granular beds. Trans Inst
Chem Eng Lond 15:150–166
23. Viswanatan S et al (2001) Design and product optimization for cast
light metals. CRADA final report
1321
24. Kurz W, Fisher DJ (1998) Fundamentals of solidification, 4th edn.
Trans Tech, Switzerland
25. Shabani MO, Mazahery A, Bahmani A, Davami P, Varahram N
(2011) Solidification of A356 Al alloy: experimental and model-
ing. Kovove Mater 49:253–264
26. Mantaux O, Lacoste E, Danis M (2002) Numerical prediction of
microporosity formation during the solidification of a pure metal
within a porous perform. Compos Sci Technol 62:1801–1809
27. See D, Atwood RC, Lee PD (2001) A comparison of three modeling
approaches for the prediction of microporosity in aluminum-silicon
alloys. J Mat Sci 36:3423–3435
28. Patankar SV (1980) Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow.
Hemisphere, USA
29. Bācherud L, Chai G, Taminnen J (1990) Solidification characteristics
of aluminum alloys, 2nd edn. Foundary Alloys, Norway