eliminates the possibility of the inclu- sion being an iron-based intermetallic. Te inclusion in Figure 3a also has a fold or crack defect at its interface with the magnesium matrix. Similar results were observed with the samples from Foundry C, as shown in Figure 3b where a Mg–O-based inclusion (indicated by the arrow) was observed with poor interfaces with the magne- sium matrix. Te Mg–O inclusions ap- peared mainly as films sitting atop the fracture surfaces. Tese Mg–O films accumulate during the production run, becoming entrapped in the molten metal during sampling, pouring, and holding. Tis defect indicates that the observed Mg–O inclusion was weakly bonded to the magnesium matrix, making it a likely source of failure dur- ing tensile loading. Figure 4 shows optical macrographs
Fig 3. Fractography of ZE41A tensile fractures (a) Foundry A and (b) Foundry C with corresponding SEM analysis of areas indicated by arrows.
castings from Foundry B produced using the tensile mold are shown in Figure 2 with Foundries A, B, and D all having similar looking microstruc- tures with just a variation in grain sizes. At the start of pouring, the average grain sizes of the castings from Foundries A, B, and D were 77 ± 4, 49 ± 8, and 63 ± 9 µm, respectively. At the end of pouring, the average grain size for Foundries A, B, and D increased to 112 ± 12, 58 ± 15, and 78 ± 20 µm, respectively. Te variation in grain sizes is attributed in part to the range of pouring temperatures used at each foundry (Table 1).
Tis coarsening of the grain struc-
ture can be attributed to the trans- formation of grain-refining Mn–Al particles to less potent Mn–Al–Fe compositions during holding, as ob- served in high-purity Mg–Al alloys. Te increase in grain size over the course of the production run is more significant for the AZ91D alloys than for the ZE41A castings. In addition, the AZ91D castings from all foundries
had grain structures that contained both small spherical grains and larger irregular grains. Both these phenomena are likely due to the relatively weaker and less abundant Mn–Al refining par- ticles in AZ91D as compared to often excess zirconium added to ZE41A.
Fractography Figure 3 shows optical macro-
graphs of the fractured tensile samples of ZE41A cast by Foundries A and C with corresponding SEM micrographs of the observed inclusions (indicated by the arrows). Inclusions are known to act as stress risers, and their pres- ence on a fracture surface can indicate their role in fracture initiation. Figure 3a shows an inclusion that likely initiated failure in a sample collected at the start of the experimental trials. Analysis of the inclusion using EDX indicated it was rich in magnesium, zinc, and oxygen. Te inclusion is likely a Mg–O-based inclusion with zinc contributions from the alloy ma- trix. Te lack of any iron in the analysis
30 | METAL CASTING DESIGN & PURCHASING | Mar/Apr 2017
of the fractured tensile samples of AZ91D cast by Foundry A and B, that was collected at the start of the experi- mental trials. Te corresponding SEM micrographs are also shown in Figure 4. Figure 4a shows an inclusion-free frac- ture surface. Te corresponding SEM image of the fracture surface depicts dimple-like features and confirms the absence of inclusions on the surface. Tese dimples usually indicate good casting ductility. Samples from Foundry B were similar to those from Foundry A with no inclusions evident on the fracture surface, and their microstruc- ture does not contain any noticeable cleavage planes. Samples from Foundry D from the start of the experimental trials were also free of inclusions.
Inclusion Assessment Some of the fracture bars from
Foundries A and B were virtually inclu- sion free, while the maximum inclusion areas were under 2%. If tensile samples were prepared, Foundry B likely would produce castings with mechanical properties very similar to those of Foundry A. On the other hand, the castings from Foundry C contained the highest median inclusion area and had a maximum inclusion area of about 9%. Tis can be attributed to the fact that Foundry C was the only foundry to use 100% remelted metal and had the
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