Contraction of Aluminum Alloys during and after Solidification

D.G. ESKIN, SUYITNO, J.F. MOONEY, and L. KATGERMAN

A technique for measuring the linear contraction during and after solidification of aluminum alloys
was improved and used for examination of binary and commercial alloys. The effect of experimental
parameters, e.g., the length of the mold and the melt level, on the contraction was studied. The cor-
relation between the compositional dependences of the linear contraction in the solidification range
and the hot tearing susceptibility was shown for binary Al-Cu and Al-Mg alloys and used for the esti-
mation of hot tearing susceptibility of 6XXX series alloys with copper. The linear thermal contraction
coefficients for binary and commercial alloys showed complex behavior at subsolidus temperatures.
The technique allows estimation of the contraction coefficient of commercial alloys in a wide range
of temperatures and could be helpful for computer simulations of geometrical distortions during direct-
chill (DC) casting.
I. INTRODUCTION
THE process of direct-chill (DC) casting is the most
common way to produce ingots and billets for further deform-
ation processing. Despite the fact that this technology has
been used in the aluminum industry since the 1950s, the
cause of some common defects is still under discussion. Hot
tearing, porosity, macrosegregation, and distortion of billet
geometry (e.g., butt curl) are the major defects that occur
during casting. The feeding of the growing solid phase with
the liquid (hence, the permeability of the mushy zone), the
structure formation, the development of strength in the mushy
zone, and the solidification shrinkage together with thermal
contraction being in complex interaction may result in the
formation of defects.
Hot tearing or hot cracking is one of the most common
problems encountered in DC casting of aluminum alloys.
The main cause of this defect is that stresses and strains built
up during solidification are too high compared to the actual
strength of the semisolid material. This type of defects occurs
in the lower part of the solidification range, close to the
solidus, when the solid fraction is more than 0.9.
[1]
At this
point, the mushy zone is definitely coherent, but the liquid
film still exists between most of the grains.
The term coherency (or coherency temperature) should
be used with caution. If the coherency is understood as a
temperature at which a continuous dendritic network is
formed, and the material starts to develop strength and retain
its shape,
[2,3]
then this point can be better defined as a rigid-
ity point. At temperatures above the rigidity point, the grains
are free to move with respect to each other and so do not
transfer any forces. Moreover, before the rigidity tempera-
ture is reached upon solidification, the liquid phase can eas-
ily flow between grains and, therefore, the melt feeding and
the redistribution of solute elements occur without much
difficulty. This terminology is the one we adopt in this
article.
The question is when hot tearing really occurs, and what
are the driving forces for hot tearing. To answer the first
question, the terms the effective solidification range
[2,4]
and the vulnerable part of the solidification interval
[5]
were
introduced in the 1940s1950s. The upper boundary of this
range is the point where the stresses begin to build up,
[2]
and the lower boundary is the solidus (equilibrium or non-
equilibrium, depending on the solidification conditions).
As for the driving force, it is generally accepted that the
inadequate feeding compensation of the shrinkage in the
presence of thermal stresses is the major origin for the occur-
rence of hot tears in DC casting.
[6]
The necessary condition
for hot tearing is the existence of thin, continuous, inter-
dendritic liquid film alongside the low permeability of the
mushy zone. This condition is usually fulfilled at large vol-
ume fractions of solid, 0.9 to 0.99.
[1,7]
Novikov
[2]
suggested
determining the upper boundary of the effective solidifica-
tion range by measuring a so-called linear shrinkage. Hence,
the upper temperature of this solidification range is the tem-
perature at which the linear shrinkage starts.
Let us specify the terms we are using in this paper. The
solidification shrinkage is the shrinkage (usually volume
shrinkage) that occurs in the solidification range, from
100 pct liquid to 100 pct solid, as a result of the density dif-
ference between the liquid and solid phases. Solidification
shrinkage of aluminum alloys amounts to 6 to 8 vol pct. The
thermal contraction is the contraction of the solid phase
resulting from the temperature dependence of the density.
The thermal contraction is usually described by the linear
or volume thermal expansion coefficient. The linear con-
traction (or shrinkage) is the horizontal change in linear
dimensions of a casting during solidification and usually
ranges from one hundredth to one percent.
[2,8]
Above the
temperature of the linear contraction onset, the alloy is fluid
because between opposite walls of the mold there is no con-
tinuous network of dendrites. In this stage of solidification,
the solidification shrinkage of the melt and the thermal con-
traction of the solid phase cannot manifest themselves as the
horizontal contraction of the casting. All volumetric changes
appear as the decreasing level of the melt in the permanent
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 35A, APRIL 20041325
D.G. ESKIN, Senior Scientist, is with the Netherlands Institute for Metals
Research, 2628AL Delft, The Netherlands. Contact e-mail: d.eskine@
tnw.tudelft.nl L. KATGERMAN, Professor, and SUYITNO, Postgraduate
Student, are with the Department of Materials Science, Delft University
of Technology, 2628AL Delft, The Netherlands. J.F. MOONEY, Gradu-
ate Student, is with the Department of Engineering Materials, University
of Sheffield, S1 3JD Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Manuscript submitted May 6, 2003.
1326VOLUME 35A, APRIL 2004 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
(a)
Fig. 1(a) Experimentally measured melt level and (b) horizontal contrac-
tion of an Al-4.5 pct Cu alloy. Solidification shrinkage manifests itself in the
decrease of melt level (measured by a laser sensor) up to the moment when
the rigid solid skeleton is formed and the contraction begins (measured by
an LVDT). Note the difference in scales on vertical axes.
mold (experimentally demonstrated in Figure 1(a)) or do not
appear at all during DC casting, due to the continuous sup-
ply of melt to the mold. However, the linear contraction
appears, and can be measured, when the fluidity of the alloy
drops drastically, and the rigid skeleton of the solid phase
forms. Starting from that moment, the alloy acquires the
capability to retain its shape, and the volumetric changes
display themselves as the linear contraction in the horizon-
tal direction (Figure 1(b)). The understanding of the shrinkage
and contraction phenomena occurring in the solidifica-
tion range is very important for the analysis of stress-strain
development and modeling of hot cracking. The temperature
dependence of the linear contraction in the solidification
range is used in some hot tearing criteria.
[2,9,10]
Below the solidus, the thermal contraction continues and
frequently manifests itself as geometrical distortion of the
billet shape. In DC casting practice, this phenomenon is known
as a butt curl (lifting of the billet shell from the starting block).
The occurrence of butt curl can reduce the stability of the
ingot standing on the starting block and is therefore a poten-
tial safety hazard. Besides that, the partial loss of contact
between the ingot and bottom block will initially reduce the
heat transfer with the possible danger of remelting. In the
worst case, butt curl can cause cracks and hot tears.
A special technique was developed to measure the linear
contraction (and preshrinkage expansion) upon solidifica-
tion and applied to some binary and commercial alloys.
[2,8,11]
Several designs of an experimental setup were suggested,
all sharing the following features: graphite mold (providing
low friction and high thermal conductivity) with one moving
wall; water-cooled base (for high cooling rates comparable
with those upon DC casting); and simultaneous temperature
and displacement measurements.
The aim of this article is to describe the development of
an experimental technique, to discuss the experimental fac-
tors influencing the measured property, and to apply the
experimental results obtained using the developed technique
to the analysis of hot tearing susceptibility and the contrac-
tion development during and after solidification.
II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The experimental setup used measures the linear contrac-
tion upon solidification and is based on the idea suggested
by Novikov.
[2]
It consists of the following parts: a T-shaped
graphite mold (Figure 2) with one moving wall; a water-
cooled bronze base; and a linear displacement sensor (linear
variable differential transformer (LVDT)) attached to the
moving wall from outside and aligned with the longitudinal
axis of the mold. The reason behind the T shape, which is
narrower than the main cavity, is to make the melt solidify
faster there than in the rest of the mold, and so the solidifying
sample can be fixed on that side. To attach the solidifying
metal to the moving wall on the other side of the cavity,
we use a metallic rod with a thread (screw) embedded into
the moving wall, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The metallic
rod fixed in the moving head is frozen in the sample imme-
diately after filling the mold with the melt. The cross section
of the main cavity was 25 3 25 mm with a gage length of
100 mm.
The linear displacement is measured by a SCHAEVITZ*
*SCHAEVITZ is a trademark of Schaevitz Sensors, Hampton, VA.
DC-DC LVDT, which is accurate to 6 mm or 0.006 pct, and
two to four samples are measured for each point. A low-friction
mechanism of the LVDT and low friction of the moving
wall/mold (graphite on graphite) contact provide minimum
interference into the measured expansion/contraction.
The temperature is measured by K thermocouples with
0.25-mm-thick wires and an open tip that enables quick
response to the changing temperature. In the case of meas-
uring the displacement, the reference thermocouple is placed
either in the center of the mold or in the corner of the mold
in the central cross section, the distance between the thermo-
couple tip and the bottom of the mold being about 1.5 mm
(Figure 3(b)). When studying the temperature distribution in
the sample during solidification, a grid of thermocouples was
inserted into the mold and temperature was measured at six
positions inside the cavity (Figure 3(a)). Accuracy of tempera-
ture measurements was within 2 K. During the experiments, the
temperature and displacement are recorded simultaneously by
a PC-based data acquisition system, at least 20 points per
second per channel being registered.
[8]
The linear solidification shrinkage (contraction) is deter-
mined as follows:

s
5 {(l
s
1 Dl
exp
2 l
f
)/l
s
} 3 100 pct
(b)
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 35A, APRIL 20041327
Fig. 2Diagram of an experimental mold with a moving wall.
(a)
(c) (d)
Fig. 3Scheme of the mold cavity with applied insulation paint: (a) top view and (b) side view (circles show typical positions of thermocouples, gray
color shows the paint, and distances are in millimeters) and the schematic propagation of solidification front (solidus isotherms) in the case of (c) bare and
(d) painted walls.
where l
s
is the initial length of the cavity, l
f
is the length of
the sample at a temperature of solidus, and Dl
exp
is the
preshrinkage expansion.
The preshrinkage expansion is mainly due to the evolu-
tion of gases and the pressure drop over the mushy zone,
and it depends on the alloying system, melting, and solidi-
fication conditions.
[2,12]
The effect of heat-transfer conditions was studied by apply-
ing a refractory paint (bone ash) onto the internal surface of
the mold, as shown in Figures 3(a) and (b).
(b)
1328VOLUME 35A, APRIL 2004 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4Cooling curves in two positions of thermocouples (near the wall
and in the center) in the central cross section of the sample: (a) with bare
graphite walls and (b) with thermally insulated graphite walls (Figs. 2(a)
and (b)).
Fig. 5Average times when the equilibrium solidus is reached along the
longitudinal axis and a side wall of the mold for two cases (with bare and
thermally insulated walls). Positions of thermocouples are given by points
(scheme shown in Figs. 3(a) and (b)).
In most cases, liquidus and solidus temperatures can be
derived from the cooling curve. Note, however, that we deter-
mine the linear contraction in the entire solidification range,
which, at the used cooling rates (5 to 10 K/s), extends to the
lowest possible eutectic temperaturenonequilibrium solidus
(NES).
After acquiring the primary data, temperature, and dis-
placement against time, the cooling curve is processed in
order to obtain information about critical temperatures and
cooling rates. After that, the data are reconstructed to find
the direct dependence of displacement on temperature. From
this dependence, the linear preshrinkage expansion, the lin-
ear solidification contraction, the temperature of its onset,
and the linear thermal contraction coefficient (TCC) can be
extracted (Figure 1(b)).
Earlier experiments described elsewhere
[8]
showed the fea-
sibility of the developed technique, but there were also some
discrepancies with previously reported data,
[2]
mainly in the
amount of the contraction accumulated during solidification
and on the temperature of the contraction onset. It was clear
that the temperature measurements and computer modeling
of solidification in the experimental mold should be per-
formed in order to understand the solidification pattern.
The first results of computer simulations performed by
finite element modeling with MSC.MARC software
[13]
show
that the solidification front progresses along the longitudi-
nal axis of the mold (as expected and desired), but, at the
same time, the solidification along the walls occurs much
faster than along the centerline, as schematically shown in
Figure 3(c). As a result, two fronts meet in the central cross
section of the mold, but rather near the walls than in the
center where the reference thermocouple is conventionally
placed. Therefore, the measured temperature does not reflect
the real temperature at which the contraction starts. The tem-
perature measurements along the longitudinal and cross sec-
tions confirmed that the cooling rate close to the wall is
indeed much higher (2 to 4 times) than at the same height
in the center. This is illustrated in Figure 4(a).
Attempts have been made to place the reference thermo-
couple close to the wall, but, due to the filling problems and
air gap formation, the open tip of the thermocouple is fre-
quently detached from the sample and the readings from this
thermocouple become unreliable.
A way was found to reduce temperature gradients in the
central cross section of the mold and to achieve the required
progress of the solidification fronts, as schematically shown
in Figure 3(d). The application of the refractory paint (bone
ash), as shown in Figures 3(a) and (b), considerably reduces
the heat flux through the side walls and to the corners of
the mold, thus equalizing cooling rates and flattening the
solidification fronts (Figure 4(b)). Figure 5 demonstrates
the distribution of solidification times along the longitudi-
nal axis of the mold for the cases of bare and thermally
insulated walls. In fact, the longitudinal gradients increase
with painted walls, but the cross gradient virtually vanishes
in the center.
It is important to note that the macrostructure of the sam-
ple also changes with the cooling conditions. Figure 6
shows examples of central cross sections of Al-3.7 pct Cu
samples. When the mold walls are bare, the structure is
mixed and well-pronounced columnar grains mark the direc-
tion of heat extraction to the corners and bottom of the
mold. After reducing temperature gradients in this section,
the structure becomes much more uniform with mostly
equiaxed grains.
With this modification of the experimental technique, the
point at the bottom in the center of the mold is the place
where two solidification fronts (from the fixed wall and from
the moving block) meet. Therefore, the readings from the
thermocouple placed in this point can be reliably used as a
reference temperature for displacement measurements.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 35A, APRIL 20041329
Fig. 6Macrostructures of the center cross section of Al-3.7 pct Cu samples cast in the mold with bare walls (left) and thermally insulated walls (right).
Table I. Chemical Composition of Experimental Alloys (in Weight Percent)
Alloy Group Cu Mg Fe Si Ti (as Al-3 pct Ti-1 pct B Rod)
Al-Cu 0.1; 0.2; 0.4; 0.8; 1.5; 2.5;
3.5; 4.5 ,0.1 ,0.15
Al-Mg 0.2; 0.5; 1.0;1.5; 2.0; 3.0;
5.0; 6.0 ,0.1 ,0.15
60611Cu 0.22; 0.33; 0.44; 0.70; 1.39;
2.05; 3.31; 3.79 0.83 to 0.96 0.01 0.52 to 0.67 0.01
5182* ,0.01 3.6 0.26 0.21 0.02
*Contained also 0.16 pct Mn.
Several binary and commercial alloys were tested using
the developed technique. Their chemical composition is given
in Table I.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Effect of Experimental Parameters on the Measured
Contraction
After the experimental technique was improved in terms
of better heat-transfer conditions and the correct reference
temperature, we used it to test the effect of the experimen-
tal parameters on the measured contraction. Previously,
[8]
we showed that the friction force applied to the moving
block can considerably decrease the measured contraction
in the solidification range, not affecting, however, the tem-
perature of the contraction onset.
In this work, two geometrical parameters were changed:
the gage length of the mold and the height of the sample
(amount of metal poured in the mold).
Experimental results show that variation of the gage length
from 100 to 50 mm does not affect the resulting contraction.
The amount of melt cast into the mold affects the meas-
ured parameters, which is evidently due to the combined
influence of thermal gradients, dimensionality of the solidi-
fying sample (unidirectional solidification, flat, or full three-
dimensional casting), and the mechanical and rheological
properties of the mushy zone.
The onset of the contraction and the amount of contrac-
tion accumulated in the solidification range can decrease
with decreasing amount (level) of melt, as in the case of an
Al-3.5 pct Cu alloy, or behave inversely in the case of a
5182 (Al-Mg-Mn) alloy.
It is known from the casting practice that the observed
geometrical changes in the size of a DC cast billet cannot
be readily explained as a result of the thermal contraction of
a solid sample of the same size. The observed contraction is
usually considerably larger. The real casting contraction
increases with increasing casting speed and varies from the
theoretical value (calculated using the linear thermal expansion
1330VOLUME 35A, APRIL 2004 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
coefficient) at a zero speed to up to 50 pct larger values at
high casting speeds.
[14]
The increase of the experimentally
observed contraction with respect to the theoretical value
originates from thermal gradients in the casting. Evidently,
different layers of the casting are at different stages of solidi-
fication, contain different amounts of the solid phase, and
contract at different rates. In addition, the internal, more
liquid parts of the casting undergo, along with intrinsic con-
traction, tension imposed by the external, already solid and
more contracted shell. The difference between the theoreti-
cal and observed contraction apparently depends on the
mechanical properties of the mush, the thickness of the solid
shell, and the volume of complete fluid slurry and melt (the
depth and profile of the sump during DC casting). The
softness of the liquid interior, which offers only negligible
resistance to the contraction of the external shell, contributes
to the experimentally observed contraction.
[13,14]
Moreover,
the pressure drop that appears in the mushy zone due to the
solidification shrinkage and the poor permeability of the mush
could add some contraction by deforming the very weak solid
network. The solidification of melt in the experimental mold
used in this investigation is in many aspects (although on the
other scale) similar to the solidification of an ingot or a billet
cast from the top and cooled from the bottom. In this case,
the change of the amount of melt is similar to the decrease
of the sump depth. With taking all this into account, we can
say that the tested Al-3.5 pct Cu alloy, which shows the
decrease of the observed contraction with decreasing amount
of melt, behaves normally. The question remains why does
the 5182 (Al-Mg-Mn) alloy show an opposite behavior. Four
factors may play a role here: (1) the amount of solidification
contraction is smaller in the case of the 5182 alloy (0.13 to
0.17 pct against 0.15 to 0.28 pct for the Al-Cu alloy); (2) the
effective solidification range is larger for the 5182 alloy
(90 C to 120 C against 35 C to 65 C for the Al-Cu alloy);
(3) the tested 5182-type alloy is a commercial alloy con-
taining grain refiners and, therefore, having a much finer
structure than the model binary Al-Cu alloy; and (4) the over-
all contraction behavior of Al-Mg alloys is different from
that of Al-Cu alloys.
[18]
The decrease in the amount of melt poured into the experi-
mental mold and, as a result, the decreased melt level and the
depth of the molten pool in the mold reduce the experimental
linear thermal contraction coefficient for both tested alloys.
These results are discussed in more detail later in this article.
B. Correlation between the Contraction during
Solidification of Aluminum Alloys and the Hot
Tearing Susceptibility
In this work, we performed experiments and measured
contraction parameters using alloys listed in Table I. The
main aim of these experiments is to follow the effect of
chemical composition on the contraction of binary Al-Cu
and Al-Mg alloys and to compare the obtained results with
the compositional dependence of hot tearing susceptibility
reported elsewhere. The contraction is calculated in the tem-
perature range between the temperature of contraction onset
and the temperature of the nonequilibrium solidus (NES),
the latter considered to be equal to the eutectic temperature
for alloys containing more than 0.5 pct Cu or Mg, which is
quite reasonable for the used cooling rates (5 to 10 K/s).
[15]
Experimental results shown in Figures 7(a) and (b) demon-
strate that (1) the contraction (under given solidification
conditions) starts in the temperature range between the equi-
librium and nonequilibrium solidus and (2) the compositional
dependence of the contraction shows a maximum in the
range of alloys with the largest effective solidification range.
The comparison of these results with the results on hot tearing
susceptibility (Figures 7(c) and (d)) reveals that the composi-
tional range of maximum hot tearing coincides with the range
of the largest contraction in the solidification range. These
results can be interpreted as follows.
During solidification, a semisolid sample undergoes con-
traction. This contraction starts at a certain temperature in
the solidification range, which we agreed to call the rigidity
point. At this temperature of contraction onset, the semisolid
material acquires some strength and ability to transfer stress
and strain through a coherent solid network of dendrites, the
solid fraction being usually higher than 0.9.
[2,8]
The amount
of free contraction accumulated in the solidification range
determines the strain imposed onto the semisolid material.
If the ductility of this material does not allow it to accommo-
date the contraction-induced strain, then failure or cracks
may occur in the semisolid state. Under conditions of poor
permeability of the semisolid mush and, hence, lack of feed-
ing through the dense solid network, this crack may not be
filled with new melt (healed) and will develop into a hot
tear. This line of logic is in the basis of several hot-tearing
criteria.
[2,9,10]
It is important to note here that our recent
results
[13]
confirm the conclusion of Novikov
[2]
that the con-
traction observed in the solidification range below the rigidity
temperature is caused by the thermal contraction of the solid-
phase network.
Experimental results given in Figure 7 demonstrate that
the contraction in the solidification range can be used as a
measure of hot tearing susceptibility.
The analysis of the contraction during solidification is
quite obvious and straightforward for binary alloys, when
the phase diagram with all temperatures and concentrations
is known. The situation changes for commercial, multi-
component alloys. In most cases, the phase diagram and cor-
responding data are unknown. In this case, the measurement
of the contraction in the solidification range can provide use-
ful information about the temperature and concentration
range where these alloys are prone to hot tearing.
As an example, we tested a 6061-type alloy containing
different amounts of copper (within and exceeding compo-
sitional range of the grade). The effect of grain refiner was
also examined. The results are summarized in Figure 8. The
nonequilibrium solidus is adopted as 500 C based on an
Alstruc estimation.
[17]
The following conclusions can be made:
1. contraction maxima in the solidification range correspond
to 0.2 to 0.3 pct Cu and to about 4 pct Cu;
2. contraction starts at about 600 C to 610 C and the onset
temperature decreases to 585 C on increasing copper
concentration from 0.2 to 3.8 pct;
3. grain-refined alloys exhibit much more pronounced pre-
shrinkage expansion than non-grain-refined alloys, with the
maximum between 0.7 and 1.5 pct Cu;
4. the addition of grain refiner (0.01 pct Ti/B) dramatically
decreases (2 to 3 times) the amount of the contraction
accumulated in the solidification range;
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 35A, APRIL 20041331
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 7Compositional dependences of contraction behavior superimposed on the phase diagram (a) and (b), dotted line shows the NES, and hot tearing
susceptibility
[16]
(c) and (d) for binary Al-Cu and Al-Mg alloys.
Fig. 8Effect of copper concentration and grain refining on the contrac-
tion/expansion behavior of a 6061-type alloy: e contraction onset, C; r con-
traction onset with TiB, C; s contraction to 500 C, pct; d contraction to
500 C with TiB, pct; h expansion, pct; and j expansion with TiB, pct.
5. the addition of grain refiner decreases the temperature of
contraction onset by 20 C to 60 C depending on the
composition of an alloy.
The experimental observations confirm the previously
reported fact that grain refining decreases the hot tearing
susceptibility of alloys.
[2,16]
Two factors act here. On one
hand, the contraction and, therefore, strain accumulation
starts at much lower temperature, thus reducing the vulner-
able solidification range and total strain during solidifica-
tion. On the other hand, the preshrinkage expansion is much
more pronounced, compensating for some portion of the
thermal contraction.
The much larger preshrinkage expansion of grain-refined
alloys can be explained in the following way. It is known
that the expansion is caused by the evolution of gas (mainly
hydrogen) during solidification
[2]
and the pressure drop across
the mushy zone.
[12]
In the experimental setup used in this
work, the solidification starts at the ends of the mold (Fig-
ure 3). The temperature gradient in the longitudinal direction
(Figure 5) causes nonuniform volume shrinkage and, there-
fore, an uneven pressure drop in the two-phase zone. The
pressure in the mushy zone near the ends of the solidifying
sample is lower than in the center. As a result, there is a
pressure-induced flow directed from the center toward the
ends of the sample. Since the dendrites of the solid phase are
mostly separated by liquid films (expansion occurs above the
rigidity point), they are shifted outward from the center of
the sample. This movement is registered as a preshrinkage
1332VOLUME 35A, APRIL 2004 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
expansion. In the case of grain-refined alloys (Figure 9), the
structure consists of small, equiaxed grains that become
bridged at relatively low temperature (shrinkage onset). Such a
structure facilitates the relative movement of grains and, there-
fore, expansion. In addition, gas evolves from the melt more
eagerly as fine grains provide more large-angle interfaces and
more time before rigidity. The maximum of expansion fre-
quently corresponds to the maximum distributed porosity,
[12]
as can also be seen from the structure in Figure 9. Therefore,
alloys that are less vulnerable to hot tearing may exhibit larger
interdendritic porosity.
C. Contraction of Aluminum Alloys at Subsolidus
Temperatures
The analysis of geometrical changes of a billet in the
last stages and immediately after solidification requires the
knowledge of the thermal contraction coefficient. Because
the thermal contraction/expansion is a physical property
of the material, it is conventional to use the reference data
on the linear thermal expansion coefficient (LTEC). There
are, however, two drawbacks of this situation. First, the
linear thermal expansion coefficients are seldom available
for commercial alloys at high, subsolidus temperatures. Sec-
ond, the linear thermal expansion coefficient is usually deter-
mined by a dilatometer on long cylindrical (one-dimensional)
samples under nearly isothermal conditions (i.e., no thermal
gradients in the sample). In addition, these samples are care-
fully homogenized to achieve the equilibrium state of the
alloy. This situation is very different from the real contrac-
tion conditions of a just solidified and cooling bulk sample
in which the processes of excess-phase precipitation may
well continue.
We suggest using our technique for the estimation of
linear thermal contraction coefficients at subsolidus tem-
peratures. The average TCC is calculated as follows:
where T2 and T1 are the temperatures (T2 . T1) below the
solidus; L
T2
and L
T1
are the positions of the displacement
sensor at T2 and T1, respectively; and L
gage
is the gage length
of the sample.
Figure 10 demonstrates the TCC for binary Al-Cu and
Al-Mg alloys with respect to the composition. The coeffi-
cients were estimated in two temperature ranges: within
50 C below the nonequilibrium solidus (adopted as 550 C
for Al-Cu alloys and 450 C for Al-Mg alloys) and from
300 C to the solidus. It is worth mentioning here that the
results reflect the nonequilibrium situation of cooling after
solidification.
In binary Al-Mg alloys, the TCC decreases with an increas-
ing concentration of magnesium, the coefficients being very
close at subsolidus and lower temperatures. This trend is
quite distinct from the previously reported results. According
to the literature, the linear thermal expansion coefficient in
Al-Mg alloys is believed to increase with Mg concentration
and temperature.
[2,18]
In the given compositional range, the
linear thermal expansion coefficient, as determined on
annealed samples in a dilatometer, increases with magnesium
concentration from 33.6 to 35 3 10
26
K
21
at 500 C
[18]
and
from 29.2 to 30 3 10
26
K
21
at 400 C.
[2]
At the same time,
the average LTEC (20 C to 500 C) slightly decreases with
increasing magnesium, from 29.3 to 29 3 10
26
K
21
.
[18]
Our
experimental results give a much more pronounced change
in the TCC (300 C to 450 C), from 29 to 25.5 3 10
26
K
21
.
The contraction behavior of Al-Cu alloys in the tem-
perature range from 300 C to 550 C complies with the
previously reported data. According to Novikov,
[2]
the
LTEC at 500 C decreases from 32.4 to 31.2 3 10
26
K
21
on increasing the copper concentration from 0 to 4.5 pct.
The average LTEC (20 C to 500 C) decreases from 29
to 28 3 10
26
K
21[18]
in the given range of copper con-
centrations. In our experiments, the average TCC (300 C
to 550 C) decreases from 30 to 28.5 3 10
26
K
21
. This is
in good agreement with the data by Ellwood and Silcock
[19]
on the subsolidus LTECs of binary Al-Cu alloys. They
reported that the LTEC decreases from 32.4 3 10
26
K
21
at 0.95 pct Cu to 28.2 3 10
26
K
21
at 4.97 pct Cu.
[19]
How-
ever, the contraction behavior of these alloys at subsolidus
temperatures observed in our work is quite different. After
an initial decrease in the alloys containing up to 1 pct Cu,
the measured TCC increases with copper concentration and
TCC 5 [(L
T2
2 L
T1
)/L
gage
]/(T2 2 T1)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9Microstructures of a 6061-type alloy with 1.4 pct Cu: (a) without
grain refiner and (b) with grain refiner.
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 35A, APRIL 20041333
(a)
(b)
Fig. 10Effect of composition and temperature range on the linear ther-
mal contraction coefficient in binary (a) Al-Cu and (b) Al-Mg alloys.
becomes higher than the TCC (300 C to 550 C) at copper
concentrations greater than 2.5 wt pct.
The application of the well-known Grneisen equation
[20]
to the examined alloys shows that the thermal expansion
coefficient of the solid solution should increase with copper
concentration and slightly decrease with magnesium concen-
tration, which is rather opposite to the experimental dilato-
metric results reported in the literature. On the other hand,
the linear thermal expansion coefficients of the involved
phases are quite different, being approximately 32 310
26
K
21
at 420 C
[21]
or 38 3 10
26
K
21
at 500 C
[18]
for alloys
close to Al
8
Mg
5
and 17.4 3 10
26
K
21
in the range from
100 C to 500 C
[22]
for Al
2
Cu. Therefore, the application
of a mixture rule gives the increase in the LTEC with concen-
tration in heterogeneous Al-Mg alloys and the opposite trend
in the case of Al-Cu alloys.
When considering our experimental results and compar-
ing them with those reported in the literature on LTECs, one
should bear in mind that the amount of excess phase (Al
2
Cu
or Al
8
Mg
5
) in the alloy and the amount of alloying element
in the aluminum solid solution in our experiments are quite
different from those in the references. A solidified sample
contains a considerable amount of nonequilibrium eutectics
and the depleted solid solution, while a homogenized sam-
ple of the same composition will comprise only the equilib-
rium solid solution containing either copper or magnesium.
In our experiments, the ratio between the amount of excess
phases and the amount of alloying element in the solid solu-
tion may play a decisive role in the measured thermal con-
traction. An additional argument in favor of our results is the
report by Afanasev et al.,
[23]
where the authors examined
the thermal expansion of cast and homogenized Al-Mg alloys
and found that the LTEC at 400 C decreases with magne-
sium concentration in cast Al-Mg alloys and increases in
homogenized alloys. This anomalous behavior was observed
only at temperatures higher than 200 C and was correlated
with the amount of hydrogen in the alloythe higher the
amount of hydrogen, the more pronounced the anomaly.
The effect of sample height (amount of the melt cast into
the mold) on the estimated contraction coefficient of two
alloys, i.e., Al-3.5 pct Cu and the 5182-type alloy, was also
studied. The results are given in Figure 11.
In both cases, the TCC decreases with the decreasing
height of the sample (or the depth of the sump), the esti-
mated TCC being higher at subsolidus temperatures. This
change of TCC reflects the inhomogeneity of the solidify-
ing sample, as has been discussed earlier in this article.
The obtained values of TCC can be readily used in computer
simulations of contraction during and after solidification. It is
(a)
(b)
Fig. 11Effect of the sample height on the linear thermal contraction coef-
ficient of (a) an Al-3.5 pct Cu and (b) a 5182-type (Al-Mg-Mn) alloy.
1334VOLUME 35A, APRIL 2004 METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A
worth noting here that the modeling of shape distortion (butt
curl) during DC casting showed that choosing a correct model
is much more important than the knowledge of the exact ther-
mal contraction coefficient.
The simulation is performed for an AA5182 slab 1897-mm
wide, 550-mm thick, and 620-mm high. A finite-element
model was implemented in the MSC.MARC software. The
procedure is similar to that reported elsewhere.
[24]
All ther-
mophysical properties used in this simulation are taken either
from References 25 and 26 or from our experiments. Thermal
conductivity, specific heat, and Youngs modulus are imple-
mented as functions of temperature, while the other properties
are kept constant.
Two benchmark cases are selected for the description of
the thermomechanical behavior of the material over a wide
range of temperatures, from solidification range down to
subsolidus temperatures. In the first case, the behavior of
the solid material is described by a modified Ludwik
model,
[27]
and that of the semisolid mush, by extrapolating
the prediction of the Ludwik model to the semisolid tem-
perature range. In the second case, the Ludwik model is used
only for the description of the thermomechanical behavior
of the solid material at subsolidus temperatures, whereas the
mushy zone is described by a viscoplastic model within
which the plastic deformation of the mush depends on solid
fraction, strain rate, and temperature.
[28]
The parameters in
the equations used are fitted to experimental data, as described
elsewhere.
[29]
The results show that the butt curl (Figure 12) computed
using the tabular coefficient of thermal expansion
[26]
does
not differ significantly from the value calculated using the
experimentally determined coefficient of thermal contrac-
tion. The significance of taking into account the semisolid
plastic flow behavior is evident. The results obtained for the
second benchmark case are much closer to the available
experimental results.
[30]
However, knowledge of the thermal contraction coeffi-
cient is still required for the modeling. Despite the observed
complex behavior of TCC, the suggested technique can be
used as a relatively simple means for the estimation of the
real contraction coefficient at subsolidus temperatures, espe-
cially in cases when it is unknown.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
1. The developed technique allows characterization and
quantification of the contraction behavior of aluminum
alloys during and after solidification under nonequilib-
rium conditions close to those of casting practice, by
means of the following quantities: the temperature of the
contraction onset, the preshrinkage expansion, the amount
of contraction in the solidification range, and the ther-
mal contraction coefficient at subsolidus temperatures.
2. The amount of the contraction accumulated in the solidi-
fication range is shown to correlate well with the hot tear-
ing susceptibility of binary alloys. The effect of copper
and grain refinement on the contraction and, hence, hot
tearing susceptibility is examined for a 6061-type alloy.
Two maxima of contraction are found at 0.2 to 0.3 and
4 pct Cu. The addition of a grain refiner to the 6061-type
alloy decreases the solidification contraction by 2 to
3 times and the temperature of the contraction onset by
20 to 60 K.
3. The thermal contraction coefficient at subsolidus tem-
peratures shows complex behavior with respect to the
composition of binary alloys and the experimental param-
eters. However, our technique is highly reproducible and
can be used for the determination of the contraction coeffi-
cient at high temperatures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work is done within the framework of the research
program of the Netherlands Institute for Metals Research
(www.nimr.nl), project Nos. MP97014 and MC02135. The
authors thank A. Stangeland and Y. van der Drift for their
assistance in performing some of the experiments.
REFERENCES
1. J. Campbell: Castings, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, United
Kingdom, 1991.
2. I.I. Novikov: Goryachelomkost tsvetnykh metallov i splavov (Hot Short-
ness of Nonferrous Metals and Alloys), Nauka, Moscow, 1966.
3. L. Arnberg and L. Bckerud: Solidification Characteristics of Aluminum
Alloys, vol. 3, Dendritic Coherency, AFS, Des Plaines, IL, 1996.
4. A.A. Bochvar: Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, OTN, 1942, No. 9, p. 31.
5. W.S. Pellini: Foundry, 1952, vol. 80, pp. 125-33 and 192-99.
6. L. Katgerman: J. Met., 1982, vol. 34, pp. 46-49.
7. T.W. Clyne and G.J. Davies: Br. Foundryman, 1981, vol. 74, pp. 65-73.
8. D. Eskine, J. Zuidema, Jr., and L. Katgerman: Int. J. Cast Met. Res.,
2002, vol. 14, pp. 217-24.
9. N.N. Prokhorov: Russ. Castings Prod., 1962, No. 2, pp. 172-75
10. D.G. Eskin, Suyitno, and L. Katgerman: Progr. Mater. Sci., 2004, in
press.
11. I.I. Novikov, G.A. Korolkov, and A.N. Yakubovich: Russ. Castings
Prod., 1971, No. 8, pp. 333-34.
12. G.A. Korolkov and G.M. Kuznetsov: Sov. Castings Technol., 1990,
No. 6, pp. 1-3.
13. M. MHamdi, A. Pilipenko, and D. Eskin: AFS Trans., 2003, vol. 111,
pp. 333-40.
14. V.I. Dobatkin: Nepreryvnoe lite i liteinye svoistva splavov (Con-
tinuous Casting and Casting Properties of Alloys), Oborongiz,
Moscow, 1948.
15. I.I. Novikov and V.S. Zolotorevskii: Dendritnaya likvatsiya v splavakh
(Dendritic Segregation in Alloys), Nauka, Moscow, 1966.
16. W.I. Pumphrey and J.V. Lyons: J. Inst. Met., 1947, vol. 74, pp. 439-55.
17. A.L. Dons: private communication.
Fig. 12Butt curl simulated using thermal expansion coefficients based
on Ref. 26 (e, s) and determined in this work by contraction experiment
(h, n), the first benchmark case (a modified Ludwik model) (h, e), and
the second benchmark case (a Ludwik model for the solid and a rheologi-
cal model for the mush) (s, n).
METALLURGICAL AND MATERIALS TRANSACTIONS A VOLUME 35A, APRIL 20041335
18. A.E. Vol: Handbook of Binary Metallic Systems. Structure and
Properties, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem,
1966, vol. 1.
19. E.C. Ellwood and J.M. Silcock: J. Inst. Met., 1948, vol. 74, pp. 457-67.
20. Modeling for Casting and Solidification Processing, Kuang-O (Oscar)
Yu, ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, 2002.
21. J. Timm and H. Warlimont: Z. Metallkd., 1980, vol. 71, pp. 434-37.
22. Y.S. Touloukian, R.K. Kirby, R.E. Taylor, and P.D. Desai: Thermo-
physical Properties of Matter, vol. 12, Thermal Expansion. Metallic
Elements and Alloys, IFI/Plenum, New York, NY, 1975.
23. V.K. Afanasev, V.L. Ukhov, and A.N. Solopeko: Izv. Akad. Nauk
SSSR, Metally, 1975, No. 5, pp. 189-91.
24. Suyitno, L. Katgerman, and A. Burghardt: Proc. IMECE 2002, 2002,
vol. 1.
25. W.M. van Haaften: Thermophysical Properties of Aluminum Alloys,
Internal Report, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 1997.
26. ASM Handbook. Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and
Special Purpose Materials, ASM INTERNATIONAL, 1997.
27. B. Magnin, L. Maenner, L. Katgerman, and S. Engler: Mater. Sci.
Forum, 1996, vols. 217222, pp. 1209-14.
28. M. Braccini, C.L. Martin, and M. Suery: Proc. MCWASP IX, P.R. Sahm,
P.R. Hansen, and J.G. Conley, eds., Shaker Verklag, Aachen, 2000,
pp. 18-24.
29. W.M. van Haaften: Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology,
Delft, 2002.
30. J. Sengupta, D. Maijer, M.A. Wells, S.L. Cockroft, and A. Larouche:
in Light Metals 2003, P.N. Crepeau, ed., TMS, Warrendale, PA, 2003,
pp. 841-47.