Comparingthe resulting part versus the original part indicates several changesthat took place during the experiment. To analyze these changes, wefirst find the percentage of shrinkage on the resulting part.Consequently, the average shrinkage was found to have decreased by1.05% of the initial part. Usually, aluminium should experienceshrinkage after sand casting of between 1 to 1.5 % hence, theresulting part is within the acceptable percentage shrinkage.
Toarrive at these measurements, a ruler and a micrometer were used.Then the results were compared. The calculations are shown below:
Theoriginal part was6.090”x3.960”x1.009, while the new part measured5.950”x3.903”x1.0035.”
6.090“/ 5.950" = 1.02% decrease from original
3.960"/ 3.903" = 1.01% decrease from original
1.009"/ 1.0035" = 1.005% decrease from original
Atthe point when sand casting, there are numerous issues that can beconfronted. After first breaking down the part, there are numerousissues that were witnessed. After removing the sample out of themold, it was discovered that the removal was a bit fast andthoughtless. For this reason, it resulted in some piece of the moldnot being formed appropriately. It was realized that the completeditem had sand wash at the base of the part. Sand wash is just theunpleasant, unpredictable, surfaces of casting that arises from theerosion of the sand mold (Ammen, 1979).
Bysurveying the nose and the button of the casted part, it wasidentified that there were a few spaces in the part. Those spaces arehot tears. Hot tears can show up at first glance or through breaksthat start amid the cooling of casting (Chastain,2004).
Toadjust the sand wash, the new part was filled. The filling made asmooth surface as far as it matters. There was no attempt to amendthe hot tear. This was in accordance to a rule advising us not torectify the imperfections to the part. The resulting part had barbededges so were thusly filled to make them smooth.
Shrinkagehappened in the resulting part as shown by the calculations above.There are two systems that could have been used to counteractshrinkage. Out of the two, this paper will discuss the strategy thatis recommended. A larger part could have been utilized with the goalthat it could make up for the shrinkage. If a bigger part would havebeen used, the resulting product would have been machined to thepoint where the estimations would have compared to the estimations ofthe example. The admission of mistake will ensure that the same isnot repeated in future experiments (Wang, Stoll & Conley,2010).
Themost detectable defect in the completed casted part happened at thebase left half of the head on the part. If one looks at the cavitiesthey will perceive that there is a precarious slope from the part tothe head. The lofty slope is the reason that the intricacies on thehead did not cast accurately. On surveying the right half of thehead, one will find that, the parts unpredictability were castedeffectively. The reason it casted this side well was on account ofthe fact that the right sides cavity had and slant, as opposed tohaving a precarious depression. Also in this way, the grade made itless demanding for the part to be casted.
Ammen,C. W. (1979). Thecomplete handbook of sand casting.Blue Ridge Summit, Pa: Tab Books.
Chastain,S. (2004). Metalcasting: A sand casting manual for the small foundry.Jacksonville, FL: Steve Chastain.
Wang,W., Stoll, H. W., & Conley, J. G. (2010). Rapidtooling guidelines for sand casting.New York: Springer.