Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 43, Issue 10, pp 3577–3581 | Cite as

Semisolid processing of near-eutectic and hypereutectic Al–Si–Cu alloys

  • Yucel Birol


Semisolid processing of near-eutectic and hypereutectic versions of alloy 380 offers to overcome the problems encountered in casting hypereutectic Al–Si alloys and was thus explored in the present work. Experimental near-eutectic and hypereutectic Al–Si–Cu alloys obtained by adding elemental silicon to the 380 alloy were melted and were cooled to within 5 to 15 °C of their liquidus points before they were poured into a permanent mould in order to produce non-dendritic feedstock for thixoforming. This low superheat casting (LSC) process largely replaced α-Al dendrites with relatively smaller α-Al rosettes in all alloys. The slugs machined from the LSC ingots thus obtained were thixoformed after they were heated in situ in the semisolid range, between 568 and 573 °C, for 5 min in a laboratory press. Semisolid soaking sufficed to produce the required globular structure even when some dendritic features were retained in the starting feedstock. The hardness of the thixoformed parts which ranged between 84 and 96 HB have increased to 121–131 HB after the T6 heat treatment, implying a considerable age-hardening potential. The T6 treatment also improved the morphology of the eutectic silicon with potential benefits regarding the ductility of the thixoformed part.


Primary Silicon Eutectic Silicon Permanent Mould Liquidus Point Semisolid State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



It is a pleasure to thank O. Çakır and F. Alageyik for their help in the experimental part of this work. The financial support of the State Planning Organization of Turkey is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. 1.
    Birol Y, Birol F (2007) In: Cueto E, Chinesta F (eds) 10th ESAFORM conference on material forming. AIP, p 1167Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pratt GC (1973) Int Mater Rev 18:1Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rohatgi PK, Asthana R, Das S (1986) Int Met Rev 131:115Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lasa L, Rodriguez-Ibabe JM (2002) Scr Mater 46:477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kapranos P, Kirkwood DH, Atkinson HV, Rheinlander JT, Bentzen JJ, Toft PT, Debel CP, Laslaz G, Maenner L, Blais S, Rodriguez-Ibabe JM, Lasa L, Giordano P, Chiarmetta G, Giese A (2003) J Mater Process Technol 135:271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Midson S, Keist J, Svare J (2002) SAE 2002 World Congress, Detroit, Michigan, March 4–7, 2002, 2002-01-394Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ward PJ, Atkinson HV, Anderson PRG, Elias LG, Garcia B, Kahlen L, Rodriguez-Ibabe J-M (1996) Acta Mater 44:1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Birol Y (2007) Int J Mater Res 98:1019Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Materials Institute, Marmara Research CenterTUBITAKKocaeliTurkey

Personalised recommendations