Journal of Alloys and Compounds 456 (2008) 201210

Review
Fluidity of aluminum alloys and composites: A review
K.R. Ravi
a
, R.M. Pillai
a,
, K.R. Amaranathan
a
, B.C. Pai
a
, M. Chakraborty
b
a
Materials and Minerals Division, Regional Research Laboratory, Trivandrum, India
b
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India
Received 4 December 2006; accepted 10 February 2007
Available online 14 February 2007
Abstract
Thin wall casting of aluminum alloys and their composites provide new opportunities for aerospace and automotive industries in producing
light weight structures with good mechanical properties. These opportunities can be realized only when the foundries are condent in their ability
to produce thinner-wall castings. The primary issue that must be addressed in producing thin wall castings is uidity. The uidity of aluminum
alloys and composites has a direct inuence not only on material castability, but also on the casting properties. Fluidity is a complex parameter that
is affected by the properties of the molten metal and mold, pouring conditions, reinforcement characteristics and solidication mechanism. This
paper brings out the current understanding about the various factors inuencing the uidity of aluminumalloys and composites. Further, theoretical
model available in the literature to predict the uidity of aluminum alloys and their composites is given and its signicance has been discussed.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fluidity; Aluminum alloys; Metal matrix composites; Thin wall casting
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
2. Metallurgical factors inuencing uidity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
2.1. Composition and trace addition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
2.2. Melt superheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
2.3. Viscosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
2.4. Surface tension and oxide lm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
2.5. Melt cleanliness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
2.6. Grain renement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
2.7. Modication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
3. Reinforcement characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
3.1. Volume fraction of the particle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
3.2. Particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
3.3. Particle shape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
3.4. Agglomeration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
4. Solidication mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
5. Mold characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
5.1. Mold materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
5.2. Permeability of mold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
5.3. Mold coating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
5.4. Mold temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
6. Analytical solution for uidity length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 471 2515270; fax: +91 471 2491712.
E-mail address: rmpillai rrl@yahoo.com (R.M. Pillai).
0925-8388/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jallcom.2007.02.038
202 K.R. Ravi et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 456 (2008) 201210
7. General discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
1. Introduction
Thin wall castings often are advantageous because of their
light weight structure, which enables for increased payload and
reduced energy consumption in aerospace and automobile appli-
cations. There has been a growing demand to meet the stringent
requirements of the design engineers for producing thinner sec-
tion castings having good mechanical properties. Aluminum
alloys and their composites have been considered as promising
materials to meet these requirements due to their low den-
sity, high specic strength and specic stiffness combined with
good castability [1]. However, thin wall castings of this material
can pose manufacturing problems associated with mold lling.
Rapid cooling of thin wall sections of the casting reduce the u-
idity of the molten metal, which could cause the molten metal to
prematurely freeze before it can completely ll the mold cavity,
resulting in an incomplete ll or cold shuts. Hence, one of the
prime factors to be taken into account in foundry practices of
thin section castings is the uidity and a thorough knowledge
about the various factors inuencing it is also essential.
The factors determining uidity can be basically divided
into (i) metallurgical variables, such as composition, superheat,
latent heat, surface tension, viscosity and mode of solidica-
tion and (ii) mold/casting variables, such as part conguration,
cooling rate, degree of super heat, mold material and its sur-
face characteristics. In addition, reinforcement characteristics
such as size, shape and its volume fraction affect the uidity
behaviour of metal matrix composite melts. Despite the contin-
ued work being carried out on the factors inuencing uidity of
aluminum alloys and composites, there is no reliable theoretical
model to predict the uidity behaviour of aluminum alloys and
composites at present. In this paper, an attempt is made to review
the various factors inuencing the uidity of aluminum alloys
and their composites. Further, the current status of theoretical
models published in the literature and their signicance are also
discussed.
2. Metallurgical factors inuencing uidity
Metallurgical factors are the inherent factors inuencing the
uidity of each alloy system. They include superheat, solidi-
cation mode, heat of fusion, surface tension, and the presence
of surface oxides.
2.1. Composition and trace addition
Alloying addition affects the uidity of Al alloys signi-
cantly. This occurs because composition variations can inuence
viscosity, surface tension, freezing range and solidication mode
of the alloys. The uidity of pure aluminum decreases rapidly
Fig. 1. Effect of impurities on casting uidity of pure Al cast in sand mold [2].
as the metal purity decreases. Cooksey et al. [2] investigating
the effect of major impurities on the casting uidity of pure Al
observed a marked change in the casting uidity between super
pure (99.9%) and commercially pure Al (99.7%). The effect of
Fe, Si and Ti added independently and in combination to high
purity Al is shown in Fig. 1. The major contributor towards
decrease in casting uidity is Si; the inuence of Fe is small,
while that of Ti is intermediate. The large difference of casting
uidity observed between the high purity and the commercial
Al is due to the presence of Si, which changes the mode of
solidication from skin forming to equiaxed growth. The alloys
studied can be classied into two groups: (i) alloys not con-
taining Si having good uidity and columnar structures and (ii)
alloys containing Si having lowuidity and equiaxed structures.
The spiral uidity lengths of the binary AlCu [3], AlSi [3]
and AlMg alloys [3] are shown in Fig. 2. The excellent uidity
of pure aluminum initially decreases with the addition of small
amount of these alloying elements due to the widening freez-
ing range and changing solidication pattern from a planar to a
mushy one. The uidity decreases with increasing alloying con-
tent until a minimum is reached, where the alloy composition
exhibits maximum freezing range. Fluidity then increases with
further increasing alloying content until a maximum is reached
at the eutectic composition, where solidication pattern is pla-
nar. As the freezing range widens again into the hypereutectic
region, uidity again decreases. The commercially important
AlSi alloy system displays a slight exception to the above [3]
(Fig. 2(b)). The maximum uidity is shifted to the hypereutec-
tic composition of 18% Si (compare to the eutectic at 12% Si).
The minimumuidity occurs around 56%silicon content. This
K.R. Ravi et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 456 (2008) 201210 203
Fig. 2. Spiral uidity of binary (a) AlCu [3], (b) AlSi [3] and (c) AlMg [3] alloys cast in permanent mold.
may be due to (i) the release of the high latent heat of fusion of
silicon [4] (estimates vary from 4.5 to 3.7 times the latent heat
of fusion for Al) as pro-eutectic primary silicon forms and (ii)
the non-dendritic primary silicon particles form a more mobile
melt than one in which aluminumdendrites impinge and cohere.
Fig. 2(c) summarizes the uidity characteristics of AlMg alloys
[3]. Fluidity decreases drastically in the solid solution portion
of the system up to 4.9% Mg and increases as the fraction of
eutectic develops. This increase in uidity prior to the maximum
solubility of Mg in -Al is a factor for which no explanation
is available in the literature. It is also observed that the peak
uidity for AlMg alloys occurs slightly in the hypereutectic
region.
Campbell [5] compared the uidity data with the ternary
phase diagrams and demonstrated that the uidity of these alloys
was still a function of freezing range. Maximum uidity values
occurr at compositions corresponding to the eutectic valleys and
well of the ternary phase diagram. Minimum values occur along
phase ridges. Garbellini et al. [6] studied the uidity curves of
a range of AlCuSi ternary alloys. The uidity results were
largely based on alloys with copper concentrations exceeding
the silicon concentration. Hence, the data is of limited use to the
AlSiCu alloys used in the automotive industry, in which the
silicon level is usually higher than copper.
Gowri and Samuel [7] investigated the uidity of A380 die
casting alloy and observed that an increase in the Fe content
decreases the uidity of the alloy. Addition of 1.5 and 1.7 wt%
Fe to the A380 alloy caused 4 and 6%decrease in uidity, respec-
tively while the addition of 1.3 wt% Zn to the 380 alloy caused
5% decrease. However, addition of 1 wt% Cu to the 380 alloy
caused 4% increase. No signicant change in the uidity of the
A380 alloy was observed when 0.23 and 0.5 wt%Mg was added.
Rooy [8] and Wang et al. [9] also reported similar reductions in
uidity of AlSi-based foundry alloys with increasing Fe. These
observations, however, contradict those of Pfeiffer and Sabath
[10], who observed increased uidity of Al8Si3Cu alloy as
the total combined concentrations of Fe, Mn and Zn increased.
Chai [11] has observed that the addition of certain alloying
elements alters the dendrite coherency point of the solidifying
melt and hence affects uidity. Coherency occurs when the sec-
204 K.R. Ravi et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 456 (2008) 201210
Fig. 3. Effect of trace addition on casting uidity of pure Al cast in sand mold
[15].
ondary dendrite arms of the growing equiaxed crystals impinge
upon one another and begin to form a solid network of grains
[12,13]. Delays to coherency may tend to increase uidity as a
result of the increased time available for mass feeding. Limited
experimental results are available to substantiate this hypothesis,
although initial indications appear to support the claim.
Presence of trace elements is alsoreportedtoaffect the casting
uidity of Al and its alloys [1416]. Seshadri and Ramachan-
dran [15] investigated the effect of trace element such as Fe,
Si, Ti, Mn, Cr, Zr, Cu and Be on the casting uidity of 99.5%
pure Al (Fig. 3). Be was found to improve the casting uidity
while all other elements decrease the casting uidity, the major
contributor being Si and Ti followed by Cu, Cr, Mn and Fe.
The increase in the casting uidity of pure Al by the addition
of Be is attributed to the following: (i) very low solid solubility
of Be in pure Al unlike other trace elements earlier mentioned
and no appreciable effect on the mode of solidication and (ii)
formation of stable oxide layer acting as an insulating layer and
causing the metal to ow for a slightly longer distance before
freezing arrests the ow.
2.2. Melt superheat
Several investigators observed a direct relationship between
the uidity of a given alloy and its superheat [1721]. By increas-
ing superheat, the viscosity is reduced and hence uidity is
increased. Superheat also affects the cooling rate and solidi-
cation characteristics of the metal and thus the uidity of liquid
metal. Kolsgaard [22] found that the uidity length, measured
with a spiral test in sand mold, increased linearly by increasing
superheat. An increase by 1

C in the melt temperature gave an

increase of 1% in the uidity length, in the temperature inter-
val 700760

C. Sahoo and Sivaramakrishnan [23] measured the

uidity of an Al8.3Fe0.8V0.9Si alloy with a standard spiral
test in sand mold and reported an increase of 0.4%in the uidity
length when the melt temperature was increased by 1

C, in the
temperature interval of 860900

C [23].
In the expendable pattern casting (EPC) process, reduction
in effectiveness of melt superheat on the uidity of Al alloy was
observed [24]. The endothermic reaction between polystyrene
pattern and molten metal absorbing large quantities of heat from
the melt reduces the effectiveness of melt superheat on the u-
idity of Al alloy.
Further, there is some evidence that the increase in melt
superheat has a negative effect on the uidity of Al MMCs. For
instance, the uidity of AA6061 alloy reinforced with 15 vol%
SiC was found to decrease with increasing temperature. Lloyd
[25] found that the A356-10 vol% SiC composite produced by
Duralcan had a spiral length comparable to the particle free
standard alloy, and the spiral length increased with temperature
up to 750

C. In addition, A356-20 vol% SiC showed similar

behaviour up to 710

C. However, at higher temperatures, its

spiral length decreases with decreasing temperature (Fig. 4).
The most probable explanation for the decrease in spiral length
occurring in the high volume percent composites at higher tem-
perature is the chemical reaction taking place between SiC
and Al forming Al
4
C
3
leading to an increase in viscosity [26].
A356 alloy contains 7 wt% Si, which is insufcient to prevent
the reaction of SiC with Al forming Al
4
C
3
at higher temper-
atures and longer holding times. Fig. 5 shows the variation in
spiral length with time at 750 and 800

C for several castings

of A356 with 15 vol.% of SiC particles. At 750

C, the spiral
length is approximately constant up to 275 min, while at 800

C
it decreases with time and the spiral length is zero after 250 min
[27].
2.3. Viscosity
Cooksey et al. [2] observed that the uidity versus compo-
sition relationship is roughly the inverse of the viscosity versus
composition relationship in AlSi system. Existence of a similar
reciprocal relationship between uidity and viscosity is reported
in FeCuS[28] alloy system. However, in the case of composite
slurries, a strict reciprocity is seldomobserved between the mea-
Fig. 4. Spiral uidityof A356alloycontaining0, 10and20 vol.%SiCat different
temperatures cast in permanent mold [25].
K.R. Ravi et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 456 (2008) 201210 205
Fig. 5. Variation of spiral length for A356-15 vol.% SiC with varying holding time at (a) 750

C and (b) 800

C [27].
sured uidity decrease and the measured or computed viscosity
increase as a result of particle addition.
When the liquid metal contains a dispersion of particles, the
effective or apparent viscosityrises markedlyabove the viscosity
of pure (monolithic) melts. For extremely dilute suspensions
(solid volume fraction, <0.1), the effective viscosity,
c
, of
the suspension can be predicted using Einstein equation [29]

c
=
0
(1 + 2.5
2
+ 10.25
2
) (1)
where
c
is the apparent viscosity of composite slurries (g/cms),

o
the viscosity of uids without any particle (g/cms) and is
the volume fraction of the suspended particles.
In concentrated suspensions, it is necessary to account for
the effects such as hydrodynamic interactions, particle rotation,
collision between particles and agglomerate formation. At high
volume fractions, the relationship between viscosity and con-
centrations become non-linear. As a result, the prediction of
rheological behavior becomes more difcult. Thomas [30] pro-
posed the following semi empirical relationship for the viscosity
of suspensions with volume fractions up to about 0.6

c
=
0
[1 + 2.5
2
+ 10.25
2
+ 0.00273 exp(16.6)] (2)
The particle shape effects are taken into account in terms of
aspect ratio for geometries, which are simple solids of revolu-
tion. For example, the following relationship [31] for suspension
viscosity has been proposed for ellipsoidal particles with plate-
like characteristics.

c
=
o
(1 + 2.5) +
33
15
_
1
( 1)
_
(3)
where is the factor related to the particle heightdiameter ratio.
Wang et al. [32] developed the following equation for viscos-
ity of composite melt considering the inuence of particle size,
shape as well as volume fraction

c
=
0
__
(1 +D
0.95
p
)
(0.01 + 37.35D
0.95
p
)
_

_
(4)
where D
p
is the diameter of spherical particles (cm).
2.4. Surface tension and oxide lm
Metals do not typically wet molds, which results in a back-
pressure resisting the advance of metal in the mold. The back-
pressure due to surface tension becomes large in thinner section
castings. Many minor alloying elements (e.g. Li, Bi, Pb, Mg, Sb,
Ca and Sn) signicantly reduce the surface tension of molten Al.
However, the effect of surface tension is masked or eliminated by
the inuence of surface oxide lmin Al alloy and its composites.
Oxide lms, that are solid at the metal pouring temperature
can signicantly raise surface tension and reduce the ability of
metal to ll ner details. It was estimated that the apparent sur-
face tension of a melt with a heavy oxide may be up to three times
greater than of a the actual surface tension of an oxide free melt
[33]. This aspect was also realised in Al(9.5 to 10)Si alloy cast
by inert gas low pressure die casting compared to a conven-
tional low pressure casting [34]. Running lengths obtained with
the inert gas process were typically double of those achieved by
the conventional process, and up to four times of those achieved
using gravity die casting.
2.5. Melt cleanliness
Groteke [35] observed a very strong effect of melt cleanliness
on uidity. Up to 20% improvement in uidity was observed
when A319 alloy melt was cleaned by purging with halogen
gases. However, Tiryakioglu et al. [36] reported that uidity
of A356 alloy was unaffected by uxing and it was within the
experimental scatter. Moreover, degassing resulted in a slight
reduction in uidity of 356 alloys. Flemings et al. [37] and Kim
and Loper [38] reported only insignicant effect of small dis-
solved gas contents on uidity of Al4.5%Cu and AlSi-based
alloys. Recent studies by Kwon and Lee [39] showed that oxide
inclusions in the melt decreased the uidity especially at a low
pouring temperature.
2.6. Grain renement
Mollard [40] observed a reduction in uidity of Al4.5% Cu
alloy with 0.15% Ti addition using a vacuum uidity test appa-
ratus. Tiryakioglu et al. [36] found no effect of grain renement
206 K.R. Ravi et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 456 (2008) 201210
in uidity of A356 alloy treated with approximately 0.04 wt%
Ti. Dahle et al. [41] observed a more complex variation in u-
idity with AlTi5B1 addition in A356 alloy tested with sand
spirals. Fluidity was reduced with grain renement addition
below 0.12% Ti, while it was increased with additions above
0.12% Ti. Lang [3] found a signicant increase in uidity with
0.040.07 wt% B addition to AlSi alloys, tested with a bar
die casting. Kwon et al. [42] observed an increase in uidity
when 0.03 wt% Ti as AlTi5B1 was added to A356 alloy. Chai
[43] investigating the effect of grain renement of Al4%Cu
alloy with a vacuum uidity apparatus observed that uidity
was increased with grain rener addition. The studies by Greer
[44] gave an explanation to the controversial results reported
and found that the effect of grain renement on the uidity of
Al-based alloys depended on many factors: type and amount of
grain rener, alloy composition, holding time and temperature
in the furnace.
2.7. Modication
During modication of AlSi hypoeutectic alloys, plate-like
coarse silicon particles are converted into brous particles. Since
uidity is determined by the changes occurring at the initial
stage of solidication, the effect of eutectic modifying agents in
AlSi alloys would not be expected to give any large effect [45],
unless the Si content is close to the eutectic composition. Kotte
[46] found that both Na and Sr reduce uidity to some extent,
but with Sr the reduction in uidity was less than that with Na.
Venkateswaran et al. [47] observed that the uidity decreased
with the additions of Na, Na +Sr, Ti, Na +Ti, Na +Sr +Ti, while
it increases with the additions of S, Sb, Sb +Ti, S+Ti. Seshadri
and Ramachandran [48] found that the modication of Al12Si
alloy reduced the uidity by 57%in a sand mold and by 2 to 3%
in a cast iron mold. Sahoo and Sivaramakrishnan [23] studied
the effect of modication by Mg in Al8.3Fe0.8V0.9Si alloy
on the uidity and found that the modied alloys exhibited better
uidity than the unmodied alloys. The addition of 1% pure Mg
gave 15% better uidity than the unmodied alloy.
3. Reinforcement characteristics
3.1. Volume fraction of the particle
In the case of particles dispersed composites, the uidity at
any given temperature is diminished relative to particle free base
alloy [4953]. Surappa and Rohatgi [50] observed a decrease
in spiral uidity with the addition of reinforcement like mica,
graphite, silicon carbide and alumina particles in the size range
40200 m in various Al alloys. Carity [54] found that spiral
uidity decreases with volume fraction of SiCin A356 and A357
alloys cast in permanent mold (Fig. 6).
3.2. Particle size
Fluidity of Al4.5Cumica composites [55] (cast in per-
manent mold) decreases with a decrease in the reinforcement
particle size for a given volume fraction of particles (Fig. 7).
Fig. 6. Fluidity vs. vol.% of SiC particles in A356 and A357 cast in permanent
mold [54].
Yarandi et al. [56] found that the A356 alloySiC
p
composite
(cast in a permanent mold) containing 15 vol.% SiC
p
of 9 m
diameter had the lowest owability, lower than that of compos-
ite containing 20 vol.% SiC
p
of 14 m diameter, indicating that
particle size has a strong inuence on ow and spiral length.
The decrease with size has been attributed to an increase in the
total surface area of particulates causing more resistance to uid
owas a result of stagnant boundary layers around the particles.
Surappa and Rohatgi [50] observed that spiral uidity tested in a
permanent mold casting decreased linearly with the total surface
area per unit weight of the particles (Fig. 8).
3.3. Particle shape
The morphology of the reinforcement inuences the uid-
ity of composite melts because of its effect on the surface area
to volume ratio of the dispersed phase. Increasing angularity
Fig. 7. Fluidity vs. particle size of mica in Al4.5% Cu alloys cast in permanent
mold [55].
K.R. Ravi et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 456 (2008) 201210 207
Fig. 8. Variation of spiral uidity (cast in permanent mold) as a function of
specic surface area of ceramic particles [50].
(deviation from perfect sphericity) of the reinforcing particles
leads to a progressively greater decrease in the uidity at a given
temperature and volume fraction of particle (Fig. 9).
3.4. Agglomeration
The distribution of SiCparticles in the Al melt is not perfectly
uniform and the presence of particles increases the viscosity of
melt. But, the effect of agglomeration is very small to cause any
appreciable change in viscosity. In fact, agglomeration would
be more with ner particles, and would lead to an increase in
effective size resulting in lesser decrease in uidity.
4. Solidication mechanism
Fluidity is generally inversely proportional to the solidica-
tion range [21,57,58]. High uidity is commonly found to be
Fig. 9. Fluidity vs. particle shape of SiC in A356 alloys cast in permanent mold
[55].
associated with pure metals and eutectic alloys, wherein solid-
ication takes place by the advance of plane interface from the
mold wall with the metal ow continuing until the channel is
nally choked (Fig. 10(a)). On the other hand, in alloys, constitu-
tional undercooling and other phenomena produce independent
crystallization in main liquid mass, leading to the presence of
free crystals in the liquid, which can arrest the ow and hence
reduce the uidity (Fig. 10(b)). Further, the hindrance caused
by crystals with irregular growth surfaces in long freezing range
alloys is much greater than that of comparatively smooth crystal-
lization interface front of pure metals and eutectic alloys. Thus,
uidity values of pure metals and eutectic alloys are greater
than those of alloys solidifying over a temperature range. This
is the reason for the wide practical preference for eutectic or
near eutectic alloys for foundry purposes, particularly for cast-
ing with thin sections. However, a recent study by Han and Xu
Fig. 10. Different mode of solidication of alloys: (a) columnar growth and (b) equiaxed growth [58].
208 K.R. Ravi et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 456 (2008) 201210
[59] found that under die casting condition, uidity length of
aluminum alloy increases with increasing solidication inter-
val and decreasing solidus temperature at a given superheat,
which is opposite to the uidity of aluminum alloys in gravity
casting.
Presence of particle in composites changes the freezing time
as well as freezing mechanism. Experiment [50] showed that
relatively small percentages of particles (<5%) in Al alloys do
not lead to any measurable changes in the solidication time
with respect to monolithic (unreinforced) alloys. It is attributed
to the compensation of the decrease in solidication time due
to the decrease in the total quantity of heat to be dissipated by
the reduction in effective thermal conductivity (presence of ther-
mally insulating particles) of the composite slurries. However, at
large percentages, particles may begin to inuence solidication
time to a measurable degree.
5. Mold characteristics
5.1. Mold materials
Niyama et al. [60] studying the inuence of mold materials
observed that in vacuum uidity test, the uidity in stainless
steel tubes was higher than in quartz tubes. Flemings et al. [61]
used double spiral mold test to study the effect of mold heat
diffusivity (
m
) on uidity of Al4.5%Cu using zircon and silica
sand molds having similar grain distribution (110 AFS neness
number). The higher chilling power of zircon sand (50%greater)
than that of silica sand resulted in lower uidity in zircon sand
molds compared to silica sand mold.
5.2. Permeability of mold
Higher uidity was observed with increased permeability
[62] of mold because of the easy escape of gases present in
the mold or generated during mold pouring through the mold
wall, which can otherwise obstruct the ow of liquid metal. To
obtain good mold lling, it is necessary to arrange special vent
channels and open risers for the removal of mold gases.
5.3. Mold coating
An important function of mold coatings is to reduce the heat
transfer rate between the owing metal and the mold. The greater
the resistance to heat owat the metalmold interface, the longer
the metal will retain its heat and remain uid. The coating affects
the heat transfer condition only during the rst small fraction of
a second. Afterwards, almost throughout the solidication pro-
cess, their effect on heat transfer is negligible [22]. Niyama et
al. [60] showed that uidity increased drastically while cast-
ing in an argon atmosphere and using an organic mold surface
coating. However, argon showed no appreciable inuence when
used alone. Studies revealed that mold coatings, such as hex-
achloroethane and carbon black enhanced uidity by a factor of
three [63,36].
A rough surface of mold hinders the metal ow by increased
frictional forces while smooth surface increases the uidity. This
Fig. 11. Effect of metal mold temperature and pouring temperature on casting
uidity of Al and its alloys on cast iron mold [4].
roughness is related to the grain size of the molding material,
which explains the preference for ne grained sand ow chan-
nels for uidity testing. Apparent uidity as represented by ow
distance in a test mold was found to be increased by mold coating
signicantly [64].
5.4. Mold temperature
When liquid metal is poured into a mold maintained at room
or lower temperature, the loss of uidity occurs due to mold
chilling effect. Hence, the uidity is higher in hot mold than
cold mold. Very thin section castings are possible only with the
use of a high mold preheat temperature.
Casting uidity of Al and its alloys is largely inuenced by
mold temperature as shown in Fig. 11. The casting uidity of Al
and its alloys increases rapidly with the increase in mold tem-
perature up to 200

C and thereafter gradually up to 400

C. A
further rise in the mold temperature approaching solidus tem-
perature of Al and its alloys may result in considerable increase
in the casting uidity.
6. Analytical solution for uidity length
Flemings et al. [61] developed a mathematical model for
estimating the ow length of metals poured into a cylindrical
channel mold. It is based on the assumption that the ow of liq-
uid metal in channel stops when the thickness solidied reaches
half of the casting thickness and there is a constant owvelocity
until the ow stops. The following is the Flemings equation for
the length of ow (L
f
) i.e. uidity
L
f
=

m
dV
2h(T T
0
)
(H +C
p
T)
_
1 +
K
2
_
(5)
where
K =
_
h
K
m
_
_

m
x
V
(6)
K.R. Ravi et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 456 (2008) 201210 209
where C
p
is the specic heat of liquid alloys (J/g

C), d the
thickness of casting (cm), H the heat of fusion (or latent heat)
of alloys (J/g), h the heat transfer coefcient between mold
and metal (W/cm
2
C), K
m
the thermal conductivity of mold
(W/cm

C), L
f
the length of the spiral channel (cm), T the tem-
perature of metal (

C), T
0
the mold temperature (

C), T the
superheat (

C), V the metal ow velocity (cm/s), x the length

of zone at tip of owing stream in which choking occurs (cm),

m
the thermal diffusivity of mold and
m
is the density of liquid
metal (g/cm
3
).
It shows that uidity increases with the increasing superheat
(T), heat of fusion (H) and velocity of ow (dV) and is not
zero at zero superheat. Flemings equation is quantitatively in
reasonable agreement with the experimental data obtained with
a vacuum uidity test for the Al4.5%Cu alloy [36]. However,
the assumptions of the equation make it difcult for applying to
different Al-based alloys. Pan and Liao [24] comparing the ow
lengths calculated from Flemings model with their experimen-
tal lengths of A356 Al alloy owabililty in expendable pattern
casting (section thickness, 0.5 cm) observed that the theoreti-
cally calculated lengths are much higher than the experimental
values.
For AlSiC composites [27], uidity model predicts
decreased uidity with increasing in volume fraction of SiC.
This is in qualitative agreement with the experimental observa-
tions. However, the observed uidity values are much lower than
the calculated values. Thus, the predictive capability of Flem-
ings model is limited at present for composites. This can be
attributed to the non-inclusion of factors, such as particle set-
tling, agglomeration and the effect of chemical reactions, which
lead to an increase in the effective solid fraction in the slurry.
Hence, there is wide scope for modifying the Flemings equation
for predicting the uidity of metal matrix composites.
7. General discussion
Fluidity is a complex parameter affected by the properties of
the metal as well as the mold and solidication conditions. In
the present work, considerable attention has been paid to com-
pile various factors inuencing the uidity of Al alloys and their
composites. Certain factors have signicant impact on uidity
of aluminum MMCs, while they have only little effect in alu-
minum alloys. For example, increase in viscosity of composite
slurries decreases their uidity drastically, wheras its inuence
is negligible in aluminum alloys.
Fluidity is inuenced by the alloy composition, which can
vary the alloys viscosity, surface tension, freezing range and
solidication mode. Change in uidity arising from compo-
sition induced changes in viscosity and surface tension may
be less signicant than variations in the other two parameters.
The highest uidity is commonly associated with short freezing
range alloys, such as pure metals and eutectic alloys, where
solidication takes place by the advance of plane interface.
Minimum uidity is observed in long freezing range alloys,
where constitutional undercooling and other phenomena pro-
duce independent crystallization in the main liquid mass, leading
to the presence of free crystals in the liquid which can arrest
the ow and hence reduce the uidity. It is also to noted that
the ow length decreases with increasing solidus temperature,
which is unique with high pressure die casting. The shear expe-
rienced by the molten metal while injecting at high pressure
enables its ow at much higher solid fractions than the nor-
mal critical solid fraction at 0.1525 [14], at which the ow
stops. It is also documented that a solid fraction at 0.5 is typi-
cal for semi solid processing [65]. Further, the maximum solid
fraction at which the molten metal ow ceases is dictated by
ram pressure, the thickness of the ow channel, and the grain
size of the solidifying phases. Hence, it is expected that the
critical solid fraction can be higher than 0.5, which means
that the temperature at which the ow ceases can be closer
to the solidus temperature of the alloy. Under this condition,
most of the latent heat can be the driving force for mold ll-
ing. Fluidity of binary aluminum alloys is well documented.
However, the uidity of ternary and commercially important
aluminum alloys is least understood and warrant further prob-
ing.
Generally, uidity of aluminum alloy increases with increas-
ing melt temperature for a given alloy composition. However,
the same is always not true in aluminum MMCs. In some cases,
raising the temperature has a negative effect on the uidity of
Al MMCs. For instance, the uidity of AA606115 vol% SiC
p
composites was found to decrease with increasing temperature.
Despite the long history of grain renement, its inuence
on uidity is still controversial. While some studies have con-
cluded that grain renement decreases uidity while others have
reported increased uidity. Grain rener addition in aluminum
alloys inuences the uidity in two different ways. Firstly, it
renes -Al dendrites during solidication. It is known that
ne particles are more effective in stopping a owing stream
than an equivalent percentage of coarse particles. Hence, uid-
ity is expected to decrease with grain renement. Secondly, grain
renement postpones the dendrite coherency point [41], which
can be related to uidity [66]. The ow of liquid stream can be
assumed to be impaired when the dendrites at the tip become
coherent which means that a late coherency would be expected
to increase the uidity with grain renement. Depending on the
dominance of one of the above mechanism grain rener addi-
tion can either increase or decrease uidity. Hence, the effect of
grain renement on the uidity of Al-based alloys is a complex
phenomena and depends on many factors: type and amount of
grain rener, alloy composition, holding time and temperature
in the furnace.
Flemings et al. [61] developed a theoretical model to predict
the uidity length of monolithic alloys. However, theoretical
uidity values based on Flemings model are higher than the
experimental spiral uidity length in aluminum casting alloys
and metal matrix composite melts. This wide gap can be nar-
rowed down by incorporating (i) the solidication behaviour of
alloys and (ii) the decrease in ow velocity due to surface ten-
sion, oxide lm friction and bend losses in Flemings model. In
addition to that particle settling, agglomeration and the effect
of chemical reactions are required to include in the Flemings
model topredict the uiditybehaviour of metal matrixcomposite
melts.
210 K.R. Ravi et al. / Journal of Alloys and Compounds 456 (2008) 201210
8. Conclusion
The uidityof pure aluminumdecreases rapidlywiththe addi-
tion of alloying elements until a minimum is reached (close
to the maximum freezing range composition). Fluidity then
increases to a maximum typically at the eutectic composition
and again decrease as the freezing range widens in the hyper-
eutectic region. However, AlSi alloy systemdisplays a slight
exception to this rule with its maximumuidity shifting to the
hypereutectic region.
Higher uidity is commonly observed in alloys where solid-
ication takes place by planar front.
Fluidity of aluminum alloys increases with increase in per-
meability, surface nish and temperature of the mold.
Fluidity behaviour of ternary aluminumalloys is similar to the
binary alloys. Maximumuidity values occur at compositions
corresponding to the eutectic valleys and well of the ternary
phase diagramand minimumvalues occur along phase ridges.
Fluidity of aluminum alloys increases with increasing melt
superheat. However, increasing the temperature has a negative
effect on the uidity of some Al MMCs.
There in no unanimity among the researchers on the inuence
of grain renement on the uidity of aluminum alloys.
Fluidity of aluminum MMCs decreases with increase in the
volume fraction, size angularity and agglomeration of the
reinforcement particles.
Acknowledgement
The authors kindly acknowledge the nancial assistance
received by the rst author as SRF from CSIR, New Delhi.
References
[1] W.C. Harrigan, Handbook of Metallic Composites, Marcel Dekker, New
York, 1994, p. 759.
[2] C.J. Cooksey, C.V. Kondic, J. Wiclcock, J. Inst. Br. Foundrymen 52 (1959)
381.
[3] G. Lang, Aluminium 48 (1972) 664672.
[4] Metals Handbook 4th Ed. Properties and selection: non-ferrous alloys and
pure metals, ASM, vol. 12, 1979, 164165.
[5] J. Campbell, Cast Met. 4 (1991) 101.
[6] O. Garbellini, H. Palacio, H. Biloni, Cast Met. 3 (1990) 82.
[7] S. Gowri, F.H. Samuel, Met. Trans. A 25A (1994) 437448.
[8] E.L. Rooy, AFS Trans. 93 (1985) 935938.
[9] L. Wang, M. Makhlouf, D. Apelian, Int. Mater. Rev. 40 (1995) 225252.
[10] W.D. Pfeiffer, G. Sabath, Banyasz. Kohasz. Lapok. 37 (1986) 3943.
[11] G. Chai, Z. Metallkd 86 (1) (1995) 5459.
[12] A.K. Dahle, L. Arnberg, Proceedings of the Fourth International Confer-
ence on Aluminum Alloys, Atlanta, 1994, pp. 9198.
[13] M.C. Flemings, AFS Trans. 67 (1959), pp 496-.
[14] M.C. Flemings, J. Inst. Br. Foundrymen 57 (1964) 312.
[15] M.R. Seshadri, A. Ramachandran, AFS Trans. 73 (1965) 292.
[16] C.B. Lin, Y.W. Hung, W.C. Liu, S.W. Kang, Mater. Process. Technol. 110
(2001) 152159.
[17] K.L. Clark, Proc. Inst. Br. Foundrymen A52 (19451946) 39.
[18] K.L. Clark, AFS Trans. 54 (1946) 3748.
[19] J.E. Worthington, J. Inst. Br. Foundrymen A144 (1950) 43.
[20] V. Kondic, H.J. Kozlowski, J. Inst. Met. 75 (1949), pp 665-.
[21] P. Bastein, A. Portevin, J. Inst. Met. 45 (1934) 54.
[22] A. Kolsgaard, Ph.D. Thesis, NTNU University of Science and Technology,
1993.
[23] K.L. Sahoo, C.S. Sivaramakrishnan, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 135 (2003)
253257.
[24] E.N. Pan, K.Y. Liao, AFS Trans. (1998) 233242.
[25] D.J. Lloyd, Compos. Sci. Technol. 35 (1989) 159179.
[26] P.K. Rohatgi, Mod. Cast (1988) 47.
[27] D.J. Lloyd, Int. Met. Rev. 39 (1994) 123.
[28] N. Kayama, K. Murali, S. Kiguchi, H. Satoh, Rep. Cast. Rese. Lab. 27
(1976) 18.
[29] A. Einsten, Ann. Phys. 34 (1911) 591.
[30] D.G. Thomas, J. Colloid. Sci. 20 (1965) 267.
[31] E.N. Lawrence, J. Compos. Mater. 1 (1967) 100.
[32] J. Wang, Q. Guo, M. Nishio, H. Ogawa, D. Shu, K. Li, S. He, B. Sun, J.
Mater. Process. Technol. 136 (2003) 6063.
[33] C.R. Loper Jr., AFS Trans. (1992) 533548.
[34] S. Morimoto, N. Ohnishi, S. Okada, AFS Trans. 95 (1987) 39.
[35] D.E. Groteke, AFS Trans. 93 (1985) 953960.
[36] M. Tiryakioglu, D.R. Askeland, C.W. Ramsay, AFS Trans. 102 (1994)
1725.
[37] M.C. Flemings, E. Niiyama, H.F. Taylor, AFS Trans. 69 (1961) 625
635.
[38] J.M. Kim, C.R. Loper Jr., AFS Trans. 103 (1985) 521529.
[39] Y.D. Kwon, Z.H. Lee, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 360 (2003) 372376.
[40] R.Mollard, MS Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA, 1960.
[41] A.K. Dahle, P.A. Tondal, J.J. Paradies, L. Arnberg, Met. Mater. Trans. A27
(1996) 23052313.
[42] Y.D. Kwon, K.H. Kim, Z.H. Lee, Light Met. (2001) 12811284.
[43] G.Chai, Ph.D. Thesis, Stockholm University, Chem. Com., 1994.
[44] A.L. Greer, Grain Renement, Manufacturing High Integrity Aluminium
and Magnesium Castings, International Summer School, Worcester Poly-
technic Institute, 2003.
[45] A.K. Dahle, L. Baeckerund, L. Arnberg, Final report for AFS, 1997.
[46] B. Kotte, Mod. Cast. (1985) 3335.
[47] S. Venkateswaran, R.M. Mallya, M.R. Seshadri, AFS Trans. 94 (1986)
701708.
[48] M.R. Seshadri, A. Ramachandran, Mod. Cast. 21 (1965) 110122.
[49] F.M. Yarandi, P.K. Rohatgi, S. Ray, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 2 (3) (1993)
359.
[50] M.K. Surappa, P.K. Rohatgi, Met. Trans. B 12B (1981) 327.
[51] V.A. Ravi, D.J. Frydrych, A.S. Nagelberg, in: D.M. Stefanescu, S. Sen
(Eds.), Cast. MMC, American Foundrymens Society, Des Plaines, 1994,
p. 306.
[52] A. Kolsgaard, S. Brusethaug, Mater. Sci. Technol. 10 (1994) 545.
[53] D.O. Kennedy et al., 95th Annual Meeting of American Foundrymens
Society, AFS, Birmingham, 1991, 729.
[54] R.E. Carity, AFS Trans. 152 (1990) 743.
[55] D. Nath, P.K. Rohatgi, J. Mater. Sci. 16 (4) (1981) 983.
[56] F.M. Yarandi, P.K. Rohatgi, S. Ray, AFS Trans. 153 (1992) 575.
[57] E. Nielson, Lawerance, J. Compos. Mater. 1 (1967) 100.
[58] A.K. Dahle, S. Karlsen, L. Arnberg, Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 9 (1996) 103112.
[59] Q. Han, H. Xu, Scripta Mater. 53 (2005) 710.
[60] E. Niyama, K. Anzai, T. Funakubo, S. Hiratsuka, J. Mater. Process. Technol.
63 (1997) 779783.
[61] M.C. Flemings, F.R. Mollard, H.F. Taylor, AFS Trans. 69 (1961) 566576.
[62] M. Brezina, V. Kondic, The Brithish Foundrymen 66 (1973) 337.
[63] M.C. Flemings, F.R. Mollard, H.F. Taylor, Mod. Cast. (1961) 100110.
[64] J.C. Bell, AFS Trans. 56 (1948) 365.
[65] Q. Han, S. Viswanthan, Mater. Sci. Eng. 364A (2004) 4854.
[66] M.C. Flemings, Solidication Processing, McGraw Hill, London, 1974.