NivaarExam PrepOfficial exam papers ↗

22-Mec-A4 Design and Manufacture of Machine Elements · May 2017

Question 1 of 6: Casting defects in a no-bake sand-moulded cast-iron tee

Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)

Notes on this paper

Paper format. National Examinations, May 2017 — 16-Mec-A4, Design and Manufacture of Machine Elements. Three hours, open book, any non-communicating calculator. Six questions in two parts: Part A (Q1–Q3) is manufacturing-process theory, Part B (Q4–Q6) is machine-element analysis. The rubric asks for two questions from Part A and two from Part B, all of equal value (25 % each). All six are solved here, because this set is a study resource rather than an examination script.

Reference texts.

Check — two readings taken from the printed figures. (i) In the Q6 brake figure the 300 mm dimension line runs through the drum centre with an arrowhead on each rim, so it is a diameter: the drum radius is 150 mm. A radius reading of 300 mm is geometrically impossible here because the arms stand only 250 mm off the centreline. (ii) Q6 states only that “the coefficient of friction is specified”; the numeric value is not given, so μ = 0.30 is assumed (a normal value for a moulded lining on cast iron) and every result is also given in closed symbolic form so any other μ can be substituted directly.

Question 1: Casting defects in a no-bake sand-moulded cast-iron tee

Question text not reproduced: the examination questions are © Engineers and Geoscientists BC. Open the official past paper (linked at the top of this page) to read the question, then follow the worked solution below.

Approach. All three defects are read off the same mould: locate each defect on the casting, ask what is locally different there (gas source, metallostatic head, section thickness), and name the process variable that controls it.

(a) Why the gas bubbles appear only at that one location

Air-set (no-bake) sand is bonded with an organic resin — a furan or phenolic urethane cured chemically at room temperature. When the mould is filled at roughly 1350 °C, that binder pyrolyses instantly, and every gram of resin releases a large volume of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon vapour. The core is the worst offender because it is surrounded by hot metal on all sides while the mould is heated on one face only, so the core reaches decomposition temperature throughout its section and its gas has nowhere to go except through the metal or out along the core prints.

That is the whole explanation for the localisation. The gas evolved in the core travels to the metal–core interface, and the bubbles that break away rise through the liquid iron by buoyancy until they are trapped by the first solidified skin. The location marked in Figure S3(b) is the upper surface of the horizontal branch of the tee, directly over the core — it is simultaneously (i) the roof of the cavity above the gas source, so buoyant bubbles collect there and cannot escape further; (ii) a cope surface, where the solidifying skin forms early and caps the bubbles in place; and (iii) remote from the core prints, which are the only vented path out of the core. Everywhere else the bubbles either escape into the mould through the permeable sand, are flushed out ahead of the advancing metal front while the cavity is still filling, or rise clear into the sprue and riser and leave the casting entirely.

The controllable causes are therefore core gas evolution and core venting, not the melt itself: excessive binder content (a resin level above about 1.5 % of sand weight is generous), incompletely cured or too-fresh cores, moisture pickup in storage, core sand that is too fine or too tightly compacted to be permeable, and cores whose vent holes or coke/wax vent ropes do not run out through the core print into the atmosphere. The remedies follow directly: cut the binder to the minimum that gives handling strength, allow full cure, vent the core positively to atmosphere through the print, raise sand permeability, and keep the cores dry.

(b) Factors that caused the penetration defect

Metal penetration is liquid iron infiltrating the pore space between the sand grains, so that the casting surface becomes a rough metal–sand composite that has to be ground off. It occurs where the liquid pressure exceeds the capillary pressure that keeps the metal out of the pores. The governing inequality is a comparison between metallostatic head and surface tension over the effective pore radius, so every factor below either raises the left-hand side or lowers the right:

(c) Factors that led to the enlargement at “C”

Point “C” is a local swelling of the casting outline — the cavity grew after the mould was closed. This is mould-wall movement (swell): the metallostatic pressure pushed the sand face back before the casting skin was strong enough to resist it. Note where it occurs: at the base of the tee, the deepest part of the mould, where the pressure head is highest, and on a heavy section that stays liquid longest, giving the pressure the longest time to act.

The contributing factors are all mould-strength and mould-restraint variables. Insufficient ramming or blowing density leaves the sand face compliant. Under-dosed or incompletely cured air-set binder is a particular risk, because a no-bake mould gains strength on a chemical clock: if the mould is poured before the resin has developed full strength, or if the sand–catalyst ratio drifted, hot strength is low and the wall yields. Sand that has been over-worked or contains excessive fines behaves the same way. Erosion by the incoming stream can enlarge the cavity at the same location if the gating directs metal against that face. Finally, if the cope was not adequately weighted or clamped, the whole cope lifts slightly under the ferrostatic pressure, producing an enlargement plus flash at the parting line.

The corrections are to raise mould hardness and hot strength at that face, allow full cure before pouring, reduce the pouring head (or pour with a bottom gate to cut the pressure surge), weight or clamp the flasks properly, and reposition the ingate so the stream does not impinge on the swollen face.

DefectMechanismPrimary control
Gas bubbles at the top of the branch over the coreBinder pyrolysis gas from the fully enveloped core, trapped by buoyancy under the cope skinVent the core to atmosphere through the print; minimise and fully cure the binder; raise permeability
Penetration at the bottom of the boreLiquid iron infiltrating inter-granular pores under maximum metallostatic headRefractory core wash; finer, denser sand; lower pouring temperature and head
Enlargement at “C”Mould-wall movement (swell) at the deepest, last-to-freeze sectionHarder ramming, full binder cure, flask weighting/clamping, lower head
← Paper overview