which was completely eliminated by the revised design. To validate the solidification analy-


sis, the castings were produced in steel in the same mold. The shrinkage porosity was observed in the original part at the location of the hot spot, but not in the revised design, as predicted (Figs. 7 and 8).


METAL About the Authors


Fig. 6. By reducing the thickness of the bottom plate, the revised L junction (right) features nearly uniform elements.


Durgesh Joshi is a reader in the industrial and production engineering depart- ment at SGS Institute of Technology and Science, Indore, India. B. Ravi is associate professor at the Indian Institute of Tech- nology, Bombay, India.


Fig. 7. Shown is a sample casting of Fig. 6. Fig. 8. The revised casting from Fig. 6 showed no porosity defect.


38 Metal Casting Design anD PurChasing


January/February 2010


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60