Table 1. Comparison of Experimental Alloys and A380 Alloy Composition* (%)
Alloy No.
1 2 3 4 5
A380.0 Si
13 7.
13 7 7
7.5-9.5 * Balance is aluminum
problem on a rack and pinion hous- ing. The casting had a thin section, and the lightweight design was not meeting proof load with the standard 380 aluminum alloy composition. After studying the problem, a higher level of magnesium content was employed to achieve a higher tensile strength and
meet the required proof load without resorting to a heavier casting with thicker cross sections. Compared with designs based on
standard 380 properties, the rack and pinion housing used 7% less
aluminum and was 0.2 lbs. lighter. The housing cast with the new alloy not only met the strength require- ments, but at the current production demand, this translated to 30,000 lbs. of aluminum alloy saved each
Cu 5
1.25 5
1.25 1.25 3-4
Fe
1.6 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.7 1.3
Mn
0.25 0.5 0.5 0
0.25 0.5
Mg 0.5
0.05 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.1
Ni
0.25 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.5
Cr
0.05 0
0.05 0.15 0 0
Zn 3 3 3
0.5 3 3
Ti
0.2 0.2 0.2 0
Sr
Others Totals
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
This engine sub-frame and engine base bracket were produced in a custom aluminum alloy. An engine subframe is traditionally bulky, heavy and made of stamped steel with welded nuts and punched holes. Converting to aluminum die casting resulted in 35-44% weight savings.
MarCh/aPril 2010
Metal Casting Design anD PurChasing
43
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