6

th
International Advanced Technologies Symposium (IATS11), 16-18 May 2011, Elaz, Turkey
321

Abstract Reduced pressure test has been widely used to check
gas content of liquid aluminium prior to casting. It is a simple and
a cheap test in comparison to the existing high-cost equipments.
However, the reproducibility and reliability of the test results
purely depends on the equipment maintenance and the user.
Therefore in this study, the test results obtained from 2024 and
7075 alloys were analyzed and typical errors that could be
generated from the RPT has been summarised.

Keywordsaluminium, casting, porosity, reduced pressure test,
quality
I. INTRODUCTION

here are three important features that define aluminium
metal quality: control of trace elements, reduction of
dissolved gas, and removal of non-metallic inclusions.
Oxide particles and films are often the most common
inclusions observed within aluminium melts. The oxides arrive
in the melt right from the start of melting. They arrive as oxide
skins on the surface of the material to be melted. When melted
in a crucible furnace, or other type of bath of molten metal, as
each piece of solid charge is submerged and melts, its surface
oxide floats free and becomes suspended in the melt. Such
films are finally found as complete, massive, film-like or
dross-like inclusions in finished castings [1].

The majority of light metals and alloys in their molten
condition are inclined to considerable adsorption of gases. The
gases absorbed by the surface of the metal are capable of
diffusing into the metal in the atomic state [2]. While oxygen
and nitrogen form chemical compounds on the surface of the
liquid metal, hydrogen appears as the principal gas that can be
taken into solution in the bulk liquid.

The main source for hydrogen results from the dissociation
of water vapour. Fluxes, crucibles, refractories and charge
materials all usually contain some moisture which will add
hydrogen to the melt. Water vapour may be readily found in
the atmosphere, especially on hot and humid days. The
reactions involved are:


2 Al + 3 H
2
O Al
2
O
3
+ 3 H
2
(1)
H
2
(gas) H (in Al) (2)


Figure 1: Solubility of hydrogen in aluminum [3]

As seen in Figure 1, the solubility of hydrogen in pure
aluminium decreases with decreasing temperature [3]. This
decreased solubility of hydrogen in the solid phase can result
in the precipitation of hydrogen gas, which may cause
porosity. However such precipitation requires suitable
conditions, of course, otherwise the hydrogen is forced to
remain in solution, in a supersaturated state.

The presence of these defects, as well as gas or shrinkage
porosity formed during solidification, can make properties
unpredictable and significantly affect the mechanical
properties of aluminium castings [4-9].

Since the dissolution of hydrogen gas in liquid aluminum
has been assumed to be a significant issue for the production
of high quality castings, a test is required to check the quality
of the melt prior to casting to ensure that best properties would
be achieved. There exits many methods to measure the
hydrogen content of the melt. Most of these techniques are
complex, delicate, expensive and slow.
Reproducibility of Reduced Pressure Test
Results in Testing of Liquid Aluminum
Gas Levels
E. Tan
1
, A. R. Tarakclar
1
, D. Dpnar
2
, M. olak
3
, R. Kaykc
3
1
Pamukkale Uni, Denizli/Turkey, etan@pau.edu.tr, tarakci@pau.edu.tr
2
TBTAK MAM, Kocaeli/Turkey, derya.dispinar@mam.gov.tr
3
Sakarya Uni, Sakarya/Turkey, mcolak@sakarya.edu.tr, rkayikci@sakarya.edu.tr

T
E.Tan, A.R.Tarakclar, D.Dpnar, M.olak, R.Kaykc
322

The standard reduced pressure test (RPT) appears to be able
to provide an indication of gas level. It involves the
solidification of two small samples of melt, one at atmospheric
pressure, and the other under a partial vacuum. A comparison
of the densities of the samples is then used to give a numerical
indication of gas content.

Although RPT is a simple test, it has sensitive areas many of
which may depend on the user. Therefore in this work, a series
of tests were carried out to investigate and discuss the
reliability of RPT test results.
II. EXPERIMENTAL WORK

Approximately 3 kg of 7075 and 2024 was melt separately
in a resistance furnace at 750
o
C. The melting time was found
to be around two to three hours. Once the whole charge was in
liquid state, the temperature was measured with K-type
thermocouple. Sample collection for RPT was started when the
melt temperature was 730
o
C. Fourteen RPT samples were
collected within an hour. Bifilm index was measured for the
comparison of test results. The dimension of the RPT steel
mould is given in Figure 2.


Figure 2: RPT mould dimension
III. RESULTS

The surface of the RPT samples of 2024 and 7075 are
shown in Figure 3 and 4.


(a) (b)
Figure 3: (a) Surface of the first and
(b) last RPT samples of 2024


(a) (b)
Figure 4: (a) Surface of the first and
(b) last RPT samples of 7075

The cross sections of the RPT samples are given in Figure 5
and 6.


(a)

(b)
Figure 5: Cross sections of (a) first two and
(b) last two RPT samples of 2024


(a)

(b)
Figure 6: Cross sections of (a) first two and
(b) last two RPT samples of 7075

The Bifilm Index change of all the samples collected is
given as a time-line in Figure 7 and 8 for 2004 and 7075.
Reproducibility of Reduced Pressure Test Results in Testing of

323


Figure 7: Bifilm index change of 2024


Figure 8: Bifilm index change of 7075

The average Bifilm Index of the samples is summarised in
Figure 9.




Figure 9: Comparison of Bifilm Index change of the alloys
after correction

IV. DISCUSSION

Reduced pressure test is one of the simplest and cheapest
ways of determining the melt quality of aluminium alloys. In
addition, it is relatively quick. It does not require any
consumable products or any sort of expensive high technology
electronic devices. Approximately 100 g of a sample is led to
solidify under vacuum. The pore formation is enhanced by the
vacuum and thus the density of the sample decreases
accordingly. The usual analysis is therefore made by
measuring the density of the samples [10]. More typically, the
surface of sample is examined visually. If the surface is not
sink or flat and it is risen and inflated instead, this would be
the indication of high gas level. An alternative way would be
to cut the sample in half and visually inspect the cross section
for pore morphology and distribution.

It is important to note that there are several parameters that
may influence the formation of these pores. They are
summarized as follows:

Sample pouring temperature:
Increasing the temperature increases gas absorption and the
solubility of hydrogen in the liquid. Therefore in this study, the
melt temperature was kept constant at 730
o
C.

Chamber pressure:
Chamber pressure is the most significant factors since
reducing the pressure increases the pore formation. As the
vacuum level is increased for example from 1000 mbar to 10
mbar, the driving force for pore formation is enhanced 10
times. Thus, the selection of the working pressure is vital. For
examples, if RPT machine is not equipped with a pressure
regulator, the standard vacuum level can reach around 5 mbar.
In this case, the pores will burst from the surface, because the
vacuum is too low which makes the test unreliable. On the
other hand, at lower vacuum levels, for example 200 mbar, the
driving force for pore expansion becomes insufficient. Then
the sample surface will look flat and possibly no pores will be
observed on the cross section. This will result in under-
estimation of the test.

Dispinar [11, 12] had shown that 100 mbar was the
optimum pressure to be used in RPT tests for reliable and
consistent results. Therefore in this study, the vacuum level
was constantly checked and controlled to be kept at 100 mbar.

It is also important to note that pressure needs to be applied
to the chamber house to make sure that the vacuum is reached
as quickly as possible. It has to be stable and there should be
no leakage during the test.

Melt gas content:
The general acceptance of the theoretical linear relationship
between the density of a RPT sample and the gas content of
the melt was discussed in detail by Dispinar [11-14]. Since
hydrogen the only soluble gas in liquid aluminium - cannot
nucleate either homogeneously or heterogeneously in the
absence of bifilms [1], there would be no pores observed even
when the samples were solidified under vacuum.

E.Tan, A.R.Tarakclar, D.Dpnar, M.olak, R.Kaykc
324
It is important to address this issue because of the
recognition that hydrogen is only a contributor in the
formation of porosity, but not the major source. Bifilms are the
initiators. Therefore Bifilm Index is used to assess melt quality
from the RPT samples [11].

Mould type:
Solidification time is an important parameter for the pore
formation. When it is fast, the structure is finer and the
diffusion of hydrogen becomes hindered and difficult. In
addition, bifilms cannot find the time to unfurl to assist pore
formation. Particularly when a steel mould is used in the RPT,
one has to consider these parameters. Thus, it is recommended
that the mould has to be preheated prior to test for reliable
results. As can be seen in Figure 8, Bifilm Indices of the first
four samples are quite low for both alloys. This can also be
seen in Figures 3 to 6.

The top surfaces of the first samples are almost flat (Fig 3a
and Fig 4a). As seen in the cross section of these samples (Fig
5a and 6a), there are no pores observed. This results in low
Bifilm Index. When user in foundry sees this type of a sample,
he might simply think that there are no pores and the gas level
is low. Actually, once the mould is heated and samples are
collected, after the fourth sample the solidification is stabilised
and pores become visible (Figs 5b and 6b). As seen in the
Bifilm Index results in Fig 7 and 7, it becomes stable and
reproducible around 40 mm for 2024 and 100 mm for 7075.
When first four results are included, the bifilm indices drop
down to 20 mm for 2024 and 60 mm for 7075. These values
are almost half of the actual result which would be misleading.

V. CONCLUSION

Reduced pressure test is a simple, robust, low cost and
relatively quick test which can assess the effect of both
detrimental defects: hydrogen and bifilms together.

Bifilm Index is a discriminating parameter that can be used
to quantify aluminum melt quality.

The chamber pressure has to be controlled constantly and
the optimum pressure is needed to be 100 mbar.

Bifilm Index results become reproducible after fourth
sample.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported by Pamukkale University
Scientific Research Projects Fund (PAUBAP) with No.
2008FBE004. Authors would like to acknowledge the help and
support of Taner Aktan from Suleyman Demirel University
(Isparta/Turkey) for the SEM studies.

REFERENCES
1. Campbell, J., Castings. 2nd ed. 2003: Butterworths.
2. Sokol'skaya, L.I., Gases in Light Metals, ed. Protheroe. 1961, London:
Pergamon Press.
3. Ransley, C.E. and H. Neufeld, The Solubility Of Hydrogen In Liquid And
Solid Aluminium. Journal of the Institute of Metals, 1948. 74(12): p. 599-
620.
4. Caceres, C.H., A rationale for the quality index of Al-Si-Mg casting
alloys. International Journal of Cast Metals Research, 2000. 12(6): p.
385-391.
5. Caceres, C.H. and B.I. Selling, Casting defects and the tensile properties
of an Al-Si-Mg alloy. Materials Science and Engineering a-Structural
Materials Properties Microstructure and Processing, 1996. 220(1-2): p.
109-116.
6. Dai, X., et al., Effects of runner system design on the mechanical
strength of Al-7Si-Mg alloy castings. Materials Science and Engineering
a-Structural Materials Properties Microstructure and Processing, 2003.
354(1-2): p. 315-325.
7. Green, N.R. and J. Campbell, Statistical Distributions Of Fracture
Strengths Of Cast Al-7si-Mg Alloy. Materials Science and Engineering a-
Structural Materials Properties Microstructure and Processing, 1993.
173(1-2): p. 261-266.
8. Nyahumwa, C., N.R. Green, and J. Campbell, Influence of casting
technique and hot isostatic pressing on the fatigue of an Al-7Si-Mg
alloy. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions a-Physical Metallurgy
and Materials Science, 2001. 32(2): p. 349-358.
9. Nyahumwa, C., et al., Effect of mold-filling turbulence on fatigue
properties of cast aluminum alloys, in Transactions of the American
Foundrymen's Society, Vol 106. 1998, Amer Foundrymens Soc: Des
Plaines. p. 215-223.
10. Parmenter, L., et al., Development of a statistically optimized test method
for the reduced pressure test, in Transactions of the American
Foundrymen's Society, Vol 106. 1998, Amer Foundrymens Soc: Des
Plaines. p. 439-452.
11. Dispinar, D. and J. Campbell, Critical assessment of reduced pressure
test. Part 2: Quantification. International Journal of Cast Metals
Research, 2004. 17(5): p. 287-294.
12. Dispinar, D. and J. Campbell, Critical assessment of reduced pressure
test. Part 1: Porosity phenomena. International Journal of Cast Metals
Research, 2004. 17(5): p. 280-286.
13. Dispinar, D., et al., Degassing, hydrogen and porosity phenomena in
A356. Materials Science and Engineering: A, 2010. 527(16-17): p. 3719-
3725.
14. Dispinar, D. and J. Campbell, Effect of casting conditions on aluminium
metal quality. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2007. 182(1-
3): p. 405-410.