Advertisement

Shape Casting pp 273-280 | Cite as

Melt Cleaning Efficiency of Various Fluxes for A356 Alloy

  • Çağlar Yüksel
  • Uğur Aybarc
  • Eray Erzi
  • Derya DispinarEmail author
  • Mustafa Cigdem
Conference paper
Part of the The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series book series (MMMS)

Abstract

Degassing operations are common methods to remove inclusions and oxides from the melt. In many occasions, fluxes are used through the melt in order to increase efficiency of oxide removal. In this work, a dirty melt was prepared by means of adding 50 wt% swarf to primary A356 alloy. Fluxes with various ratios of NaCl–KCl and MgCl2–KCl salts were prepared. Different weight ratio of Na3AlF6 and AlF3 was added. Melt cleanliness was measured by means of change in bifilm index (ΔBI) before and after degassing. It was concluded that most of the fluxes had cleaning efficiency below 40% while MgCl2 based fluxes had over 70% cleaning effect.

Keywords

A356 Flux Bifilm (BI) Cleanliness 

References

  1. 1.
    Dispinar D, Campbell J (2006) Use of bifilm index as an assessment of liquid metal quality. Int J Cast Metal Res 19(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dispinar D, Campbell J (2014) Reduced pressure test (RPT) For Bifilm assessment. In: Shape casting: 5th international symposium 2014, pp 243–251. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dispinar D, Campbell J (2004) Metal quality studies in secondary remelting of aluminium. Foundry Trade J 178(3612):78–81Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dispinar D, Campbell J (2007) A comparison of methods used to assess aluminium melt quality. In: Shape casting: 2nd international symposium, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, pp. 11–18Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dispinar D (2006) Determination of metal quality of aluminium and its alloys (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Uludağ M, Çetin R, Dişpinar D, Tiryakioğlu M (2018) On the interpretation of melt quality assessment of A356 Aluminum alloy by the reduced pressure test: the Bifilm index and its physical meaning. Int J Metalcast, 1–8Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yüksel Ç (2016) Improving Liquid metal quality of Aluminum and its alloys. Yıldız Technical University, TurkiyeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caceres CH, Selling BI (1996) Casting defects and the tensile properties of an Al-Si-Mg alloy. Mater Sci Eng, A 220(1–2):109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu PY, Jia J, Guo JJ (2000) Melt treatment of A357 alloy by flux injection. Mater Sci Forum 331:283–288. Trans Tech PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duan RB, Bai PK, Yang J, Zhang WD, Ding H (2013) Study on Waste Aluminum cans remelting and purification technology. Appl Mech Mater 372:360–363. Trans Tech PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu C, Hu ZL, Zeng JM (2012) Removal of impurities in Aluminum by uses of fluxes. Adv Mater Res 509:152–155. Trans Tech PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mashhadi HA, Moloodi A, Golestanipour M, Karimi EZV (2009) Recycling of aluminium alloy turning scrap via cold pressing and melting with salt flux. J Mater Process Technol 209(7):3138–3142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yuksel C, Tamer O, Erzi E, Aybarc U, Cubuklusu E, Topcuoglu O, Cigdem M, Dispinar D (2016) Quality evaluation of remelted A356 scraps. Arch Foundry Eng 16(3):151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Çağlar Yüksel
    • 1
  • Uğur Aybarc
    • 2
  • Eray Erzi
    • 3
  • Derya Dispinar
    • 3
    Email author
  • Mustafa Cigdem
    • 4
  1. 1.Metallurgical and Materials EngineeringAtaturk UniversityErzurumTurkey
  2. 2.CMSIzmirTurkey
  3. 3.Metallurgical and Materials EngineeringIstanbul University-CerrahpasaIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Metallurgical and Materials EngineeringYildiz Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations