Metalcasting Industry Research
Support of research is critical for North America to main- tain a strong, vibrant, healthy and continually advancing metalcasting industry. Part of AFS’ mission is to promote these activities for the betterment of our membership, our industry and our society.
AFS directly funds research projects from allocation of a portion of the annual dues paid by AFS Corporate Mem- bership. The current AFS Funded Research Projects are described below. The other projects are funded through
research partnerships, government funding and industry contributions. AFS participates in these projects by secur- ing industry partners and providing technical management and oversight. Current research funding partnerships in- clude: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of In- dustrial Technology funded through the Cast Metals Co- alition (CMC) Program and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) funded through the American Metalcasting Consortium (AMC) Castings for Improved Defense Readiness (CIDR) Program.
AFS Funded & Monitored Research
Seven projects are currently being funded through the allocation of a portion of the AFS Corporate Member Dues in FY2009-2010.
Standard Test for Machinability of Cast Iron (06-07#03)
Coordinator: Finn Metalworking & Cutting Solutions and AFS Cast Iron Division (5)
Objective of this project is to develop an easy standard ma- chinability comparative test that could compare material of the same grade from different lots made in the same foundry, qualify material of the same grade to a benchmark material and qualify material of the same grade from different found- ries. Members of the AFS Cast Iron Committee (5-J) sug- gested that the measurable observation of the test would be the V30
cast iron. The V30
Value based on a tool life database for each grade of Value is the maximum cutting speed for
The cutting tool (insert) would be removed and measured for flank wear. The heat or lot of cast iron would pass the ma- chinability test, if the flank wear did not exceed the “end-of- test” criterion.
a thirty-minute cutting tool life. The members envisage that the in-house or contracted testing laboratory would run the machinability test on a representative disc for thirty minutes at the V30
Status Update: Machining test, determination and validation of Taylor Lines for Class 35B gray cast iron are continuing at the participating foundries and Finn Metalworking. The project is still seeking additional facilities to conduct machin- ing tests. Those interested in the project scope and activities should contact Mike Finn, Finn Metalworking, at finnmwcs@
aol.com or the Steering Committee Chairman Brad Steinkamp, Dura Bar, at
bsteinkamp@dura-bar.com.
Value (specified speed) for that grade of cast iron.
Ultrasonic Testing Cast Steel Gage R&R Study (07-08#03)
Coordinator: Saginaw Valley State University and AFS Steel Division (9)
As quality demands for steel castings continually increase, de- livering the desired quality economically remains a challenge. Foundries have traditionally used radiography for quality test- ing. The reliance on this technique stems from its visual nature and historical precedent. For medium to large steel castings, ra- diography can become expensive. The expense results from the shielding, regulator requirements and acquisition cost of the highly radioactive source needed when penetrating six inches of steel. Ultrasonic testing (UT) can provide significant cost savings over radiography, because it has significantly fewer safe- ty requirements and costs less than a high energy x-ray source.
Adoption of UT has been limited by several factors. First, many customers perceive UT as less reproducible than x-ray inspection. This attitude has formed because UT output is a line scan, not the image associated with radiography. Some customers relate that they prefer the ability to archive x-ray films to maintain quality records. Second, surface roughness affects the ability of UT to detect defects; however, little data exists on the magnitude of this effect in castings and none ex- ists for steel castings. As a result many foundries machine or grind casting surfaces before UT inspection, which increases cost. There are foundries that have found appropriate equip- ment and couplants to perform UT on as cast surfaces; how- ever, there is no documentation on how this affects detec- tion limits. The most significant factor is that the majority of
International Journal of Metalcasting/Winter 10
77
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 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85