ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE FINISH AND DIMENSIONAL ACCURACY OF TOOLS

MANUFACTURED BY METAL CASTING IN RAPID PROTOTYPING SAND MOULDS#

K. Nyembwe 1∗, D.J. de Beer2, J.G. van der Walt3 & S. Bhero4

1, 4
Department of Metallurgy
University of Johannesburg, South Africa
1
[email protected]; 4 [email protected]
2
Technology and Transfer Innovation
Vaal University of Technology, South Africa
[email protected]
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mathematics
Central University of Technology, South Africa
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
In this paper, an initial assessment of the quality parameters of the surface finish and
dimensional accuracy of tools made by metal casting in rapid prototyping (RP) sand
moulds is undertaken. A case study from a local tool room, dealing with the
manufacturing of an aluminium die for the lost wax process, is employed. Modern
techniques, including surface roughness analysis and three dimensional scanning, are used
to determine and understand how each manufacturing step influences the final quality of
the cast tool. The best surface finish obtained for the cast die had arithmetic average
roughness (Ra) and mean average roughness (Rz) respectively equal to 3.23µm and
11.38µm. In terms of dimensional accuracy, 82% of cast-die points coincided with the
Computer Aided Design (CAD) data, which is within the typical tolerances of sand cast
products. The investigation shows that mould coating contributes slightly to the
improvement of the cast tool surface finish. The study also found that the additive
manufacturing of the sand mould was the chief factor responsible for the loss of
dimensional accuracy. These findings indicate that machining will always be required to
improve the surface finish and the dimensional accuracy of cast tools in RP sand moulds.

OPSOMMING
In dié artikel word ’n aanvanklike beoordeling van kwaliteitsparameters in terme van
oppervlak-afwerking en dimensionele akuraatheid van gietstukke vervaardig deur metaal
gieting in snel-prototipering sand gietvorms gedoen. ’n Gevallestudie aangaande die
vervaardiging van ’n aluminium gietstuk vir die verlore wasproses word gebruik. Moderne
tegnieke, soos oppervlak-grofheidsanalise en drie-dimensionele skandering, word gebruik
om te bepaal hoe elke vervaardigingstap die finale kwaliteit van die gietstuk beïnvloed.
Die beste oppervlak afwerking verkry vir die gietstuk het Ra en Rz waardes van 3.23 µm
en 11.38 µm onderskeidelik gehad. In terme van dimensionele akkuraatheid, het 82% van
die gietvormpunte ooreengestem met die rekenaarnumeriesbeheerde data wat binne
tipiese toleransies is vir sandgegote produkte. Die ondersoek wys dat gietvorm
oppervakbedekking effens bydra tot die verbetering van die gietstukafwerking. Ook is
gevind dat die snel-prototiperingvervaardigingsproses van die sandgietvorm die
hooffoorsaak is vir die verlies aan dimensionele akkuraatheid. Dié bevindings dui aan dat
masjinering altyd nodig sal wees om die oppervlak-afwerking en dimensionele
akkuraatheid te verbeter.

1
The author is enrolled for a D Tech: Engineering: Mechanical degree in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mathematics, Central University of Technology.
∗
Corresponding author.
#
This article is an extended version of a paper presented at the 2011 RAPDASA conference
South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, November 2012, Vol 23 (3): pp 130-143
1. INTRODUCTION

Rapid prototyping (RP) or additive manufacturing processes for the fabrication of sand
moulds include laser sintering (LS) and three dimensional printing (3DP) [1]. In LS, resin-
coated sand grains are sintered together by the heat generated by a laser beam. 3DP
technology, on the other hand, makes use of selective deposition of foundry resin on sand
grains to achieve their agglomeration into solid parts. In both systems, post-treatment of
the mould is required to obtain optimal strength of the parts. This is achieved by curing the
mould in a furnace. The two RP systems locally available in South Africa are the Direct
Croning Casting Process (DCCP) based on LS, and the Z-Cast process based on 3DP [2].

RP processes for sand moulds do not require time consuming and costly pattern making.
They are therefore extensively employed, especially in the automotive foundry industry, to
produce casting prototypes used for design and metallurgical evaluation prior to mass
production. RP processes decrease the lead casting design time and accelerate the
introduction of new components.

Recent technological developments of these RP processes include quick manufacturing time

with the advent on the market of large machines capable of producing several moulds in a
few hours. The S Max machine from ExOne Company is an example of such equipment based
on 3DP [3]. Another modern trend is the use of RP sand moulds to manufacture aerospace
components. This is already happening locally with the production of the Adept light craft
engine block from laser sintered moulds [4]. Internationally, Prometal-RCT recently signed
an agreement with Fonderie Messier, a French aluminium and magnesium foundry, to
produce casting parts for aerospace applications in RP sand moulds [5].

Considering the above applications, some researchers have gone one step further and
proposed the manufacturing of metallic tooling by casting in RP sand moulds. This
alternative tool-making process is referred to as rapid casting for tooling (RCT) [6]. It is a
contribution to the ongoing search for improved and innovative tool manufacturing
processes to meet the stringent customer requirements of quality and economics [7, 8].
RCT is an addition to the plethora of indirect rapid tooling methods that have continued to
be developed and diversified since their emergence in the last 15 to 20 years [9].

RCT essentially has five steps: computer assisted design (CAD), casting simulation, RP,
casting, and finishing operations (Figure 1). The authors have claimed that, compared with
traditional tool-making processes such as machining and existing rapid tooling, it offers
potential advantages: near net shape, quick manufacturing time, and low production cost.

In a theoretical study comparing locally-available RP processes using the analytical

hierarchy process (AHP) technique, it was found that DCCP is more suitable than the Z-Cast
process when applied to RCT [10]. According to this study, tools obtained from DCCP
moulds would have the best surface finish and dimensional accuracy. On the other hand,
tools produced from the Z-Cast process would be cost-efficient and quick to produce. The
study was based on the results of several benchmarking studies [11,12,13,14] in which parts
from various RP processes were compared using characteristics such as surface finish,
dimensional accuracy, manufacturing time, and cost.

However, at present it is not known how RCT tools will score in practice, based on these
tool characteristics. It is also important to investigate the effects of the various RCT steps
on these characteristics. In this paper, only the surface finish and dimensional accuracy of
RCT tools are examined, using a case study. These tool characteristics are among the most
crucial regarding tool usability.

131
 Figure 1: RCT process chain [3]

2. METHODOLOGY

The study methodology consists of three elements:

• The manufacturing of tools by casting in RP sand moulds

• The measurement of the mould and tool surface finish
• The assessment of the mould and tool dimensional accuracy

2.1 Manufacturing of tools by casting in rapid prototyping sand moulds

The tool manufactured in this investigation was an aluminium die for the production of
wax patterns used in the investment casting of a steel bracket. The 2D drawings of this
steel component are shown in Appendix 1. The die parts were produced following the RCT
process chain, shown in Figure 1. The casting modelling of sand moulds was done using
Pro-Engineering software. A snapshot of the 3D model of the bottom part of the die is

132
shown in Figure 2(a). Casting simulation using Magmasoft software was conducted,
ensuring that the mould would be filled without turbulence and the die would solidify
without detrimental shrinkage porosity. A top gating system through a Foseco Kalpur
device was used. An EOSINT S 700 RP machine was used to grow the sand mould for cast
dies shown in Figure 2(b). This machine is based on LS of foundry sand. One of the sand
moulds produced was brush coated with Foseco’s ISOMOL 185. ISOMOL coatings are
flammable, solvent-based mold and core coatings. The principle refractory medium
contained in these coatings is a high-purity zircon. ISOMOL coatings are recommended for
use in the casting of iron, steel, and non-ferrous alloys – including aluminium alloys. These
coatings can be used through a wide range of metal casting sections. ISOMOL coatings
provide excellent casting surface quality [15]. Gravity casting was used to produce the
final tool. Aluminium silicon alloy (LM4) was melted in an electric furnace at 7500 C and
the liquid metal degassed prior to casting. The final cast die components are shown in
Figure 2(c).
(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2: (a) CAD of the lower part of the die; (b) DCP mould; (c) RCT die – cast before
finishing operations

133
2.2 Measurement of the mould and tool surface roughness
The surface finish or surface roughness was determined using a portable surface roughness
tester (TIME model TR 110). This instrument provides two roughness parameters, the
arithmetic average roughness (Ra) and the mean average roughness (Rz), that characterise
the surface profile of the mould and casting. Ra reflects the average height of roughness
component irregularities from a mean line. Rz, on the other hand, is the average distance
between the highest peak and the deepest valley in five sampling lengths or cutoffs. Rz is
generally more sensitive than Ra to changes in surface finish, because maximum profile
heights, and not the averages, are examined. Schematic representations of Ra and Rz are
shown in Figure 3. The mould surface roughness was obtained as the average of the surface
roughness of 18 points, shown in Figure 4. Corresponding points on the cast die were
considered to determine its overall surface finish.

Surface roughness was measured for the following objects:

• Uncoated RP mould
• Coated RP mould
• Casting produced from uncoated mould
• Casting produced from coated mould

Figure 3: Variety of surface roughness indicators and typical calculations [16]

134
 Figure 4: Points used to determine average surface roughness of the mould

2.3 Assessment of the mould and tool dimensional accuracy

A two-step process, shown in Figure 5, was followed to measure and assess the dimensional
accuracy of moulds and cast tools. A VIVID 910 3D non-contact digitizer from Konica Minolta
was used to produce the 3D scanned data from the parts. The 3D scanned data were then
compared to the original CAD data during the merging step using Geomagic Qualify
software. Dimensional accuracy results consist of 3D comparison and deviation distribution
of dimensions. Table 1 shows the dimensional tolerances used for the merging of sand
moulds and castings. These tolerances have been informed by the literature that reports on
the dimensional accuracy of LS and shell casting processes [11,17].

The dimensional accuracy was determined for the following objects:

• Uncoated RP mould
• Coated RP mould
• Casting produced from uncoated mould
Table 1: Tolerances used in the merging process
Tolerances [mm] Sand mould Cast tool
Max. critical 2.0 2.0
Max. nominal 0.2 0.5
Min. nominal -0.2 -0.5
Min. critical -2.0 -2.0

135
 Figure 5: Process flow diagram for the assessment of dimensional accuracy

3. RESULTS

3.1 Surface roughness

Figure 6 shows the average values of surface roughness for the various parts. The coated
mould has a better surface finish than the uncoated mould. The difference in roughness is
important, as the Ra and Rz parameters of the uncoated mould are 2.5 and 1.8 times larger
respectively than the same parameters for the coated mould. On the other hand, the RCT
tool obtained from the coated mould has an overall smoother surface finish than the cast
tool produced from the uncoated mould. The best surface finish obtained for the cast die
had an Ra of 3.23µm and an Rz of 11.38µm.
35

30
Surface Rougness [um]

25

20

15

10

0
Ra Rz Ra Rz Ra Rz Ra Rz

Uncoated Mould Uncoated casting Coated Mould Coated Casting

Figure 6: Average roughness for the RP moulds and the RCT tool

136
3.2 Dimensional accuracy
3.2.1 3D comparison
The 3D comparisons of the scanned data with the original reference CAD data are shown in
Figure 7. The green areas represent points that have dimensions within the nominal
tolerances defined in Table 2. The blue areas represent points that have dimensions below
those of the reference part. The yellow and red areas represent points with dimensions
above those of the reference part. It appears that the coated mould has a better overall
accuracy than the uncoated mould, and than the cast die from the coated mould.

Figure 8 represents the quantified geometric and dimensional accuracy obtained after
merging. An accuracy of 82% was achieved for the cast die within the nominal tolerances
of ±0.5mm. The coated mould appears to exhibit a better accuracy than the uncoated
mould, with 90% point clouds coinciding with the original CAD data within an error range
of ±0.2mm in the former case, compared with 82% in the latter case.
3.2.2 Deviation distribution of dimensions
The deviation distribution graphs from the comparison of scanned data with the reference
CAD data are shown in Figures 9(a), 9(b), and 9(c). On the other hand, Figure 10(a) and
10(b) reveal the comparison of the coated mould scanned data with the cast die, and with
the uncoated mould. The following general observations can be made from these graphs:

• Data are missing in the central part of the graphs;

• 70% to 80% of the points lie on the right hand side of the graphs; and
• a pattern emerges as one progresses from Figure 9(a) to Figure 9(c). The left-hand side
bars are continuously truncated, while the right-hand bars increase in height.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Surface finish

The coated mould exhibits a better surface finish than the uncoated mould (Figure 6). This
is due to the coating product that was applied before casting, filling the interstices of the
uncoated mould’s surface created by the granular structure of the sand grains, and the
layer-by-layer manufacturing of the mould. This improvement in surface finish due to the
coating is transferred to the cast tool. The RCT tool produced from the coated mould has
an overall better surface finish than the one produced from an uncoated mould. However,
the difference of tool surface roughness between the casting from the uncoated mould and
the one from the coated mould is not very significant – the Ra and Rz parameters are close.
Possible reasons include the particle size of the moulding sand, the pouring temperature of
the cast alloy, and the wetting properties of the aluminium silicon alloy.

The LS process for the sand mould is similar to the Shell sand process, characterised by the
use of very fine sand with an AFS number higher than 60 in order to improve the surface
finish of a casting [18]. It appears that in this instance, the application of a coating has a
reduced effect in improving the casting surface finish. The other possible reason is the
relatively low pouring temperature (7500C) of the cast alloy in this investigation, compared
with the sintering temperature of silica sand (14500C) [19]. At this temperature, it is
unlikely that any sand burn defect can occur, which explains the limited effect of the
coating in improving the surface finish. Finally, if the alloy does not wet the mould surface
sufficiently, its irregularities will not be transmitted to the casting.

The average Ra and Rz for the cast tool produced from the coated mould were 3.23 and
11.38μm respectively. These values are still much higher than a machined part, with values
of Ra between 1.6 and 0.1μm [20]. This confirms the need to include additional machining
in the final operational steps of the RCT diagram, so that the RCT tools meet the standard
specification of tools for surface finish.

137
4.2 Dimensional accuracy
The application of a coating layer to the sand mould cavity seemed to have compensated
for the errors of the uncoated mould, thus making the coated mould appear to have a
better overall geometric and dimensional accuracy. Considering the RCT steps, the most
probable source of the dimensional errors in the uncoated mould would be the AM step by
laser sintering. This step involves the layer-by-layer growing of the mould, followed by its
strengthening by curing in an oven at 2200C for 200 minutes. It is possible that mould
expansion and deformation occur during curing. This phenomenon, evident with the larger
RP mould, still has be fully investigated.

On the other hand, the cast die seemed to have lost the dimensional accuracy of the coated
sand mould, as shown in Figure 8. Figures 7(c) and 9(c) suggest that the cast die has
expanded in terms of dimensions. This expansion could be attributed to mould wall
movement during the casting step. The displacement of sand mould walls is generally
caused by the metallo-static pressure on those walls by the molten metal entering the
mould cavity. Factors such as the low strength of the mould, or the loose closing of the
mould, accentuate the mould wall movements such that the expansion of the casting might
possibly surpasses the contraction associated with the casting solidification, resulting in a
loss of dimensional accuracy. Figures 7(e) and 10(b) corroborate the explanation of possible
mould wall movement during casting.

Figure 7: 3D comparison of scanned parts with original CAD data:

(a) uncoated mould (b) coated mould (c) coated casting
(d) coated casting vs coated mould (e) coated mould vs uncoated mould

138
 Coated casting

± 2.00 mm
Coated mould ± 0.50 mm
± 0.20 mm

Uncoated mould

0 20 40 60 80 100
Accuracy [% of points]

Figure 8: Geometric and dimensional accuracy of RP moulds and cast die

Two phenomena – sagging during mould curing, and mould wall movement during casting –
could be determining the final dimensional accuracy of the RCT tools. It appears that the
most important factor in the loss of dimensional accuracy was the RP step.

5. CONCLUSION

In this study, an initial assessment of the surface finish and dimensional accuracy of RCT
tools was conducted. The investigation showed that mould coating contributes slightly to
the improvement of the cast tool surface finish. With the dimensional accuracy of the cast
tool, incremental contribution of the RP step and metal casting led to the final cast die
being larger than that aimed for during the casting modelling. The biggest contributor to
the loss of dimensional accuracy was the RP stage, possibly during the post treatment of
the mould by curing in a furnace. Because of this, machining will always be required to
improve the quality of RCT tools, particularly if they are to be used for mass production
processes, for which there are stringent standards for the surface finish and the
dimensional accuracy.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

139
 Figure 9: Deviation distributions: (a) uncoated mould, (b) coated mould, (c) coated
casting
140
Figure 10: Deviation distributions: (a) coated casting vs coated mould, (b) coated
mould vs uncoated mould

141
REFERENCES

[1] Lerner, Y., Rao, P.N. & Kouznetsov, V. 2002. Rapid tooling applications in metal casting,
Foundry Management and Technology, pp. 47-55.
[2] Chua, C.K., Leong, K.F. & Lim, C.S. 2003. Rapid prototyping: Principle and applications, 2nd ed.
Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
[3] ExOne. 2012. S-Max. The ultimate in production flexibility and efficiency. http://
www.exone.com/materialization/systems/S-Max (Accessed 22 July 2012).
[4] Adept. 2011. Rapid prototyping. http://www.adeptairmotive.com (Accessed 31 March 2011).
[5] Fonderie Messier. 2011. Fonderie Messier et Prometal RCT Signent un Accord de Partenariat
Technologique. http:// http://www.ventana-aerospace.com/upload/ documentation/fichier/12-
129-communique_de_presse_fm_prometal_rct.pdf (Accessed 22 July 2012).
[6] Nyembwe, K., De Beer, D. & Bhero, S. 2010. A conceptual framework for the manufacturing of
tooling by metal casting in refractory moulds and shells produced by rapid prototyping,
Proceedings of 24th Annual SAIIE Conference, Gauteng, pp. 160-171.
[7] Peres, F. & Mafokhami, A. 2001. Validation of product and process design by the use of a new
rapid tooling process, Transactions of the SDPS, 5(2), pp. 23-37.
[8] Jiang, X., Liu, X. & Zhang, C. 2005. Feasibility study of a new rapid tooling process, International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 27, pp. 296–304.
[9] Wholers, T. 2009. Wholers Report 2009. State of the industry worldwide progress report.
Wholers Associates.
[10] Nyembwe, K., De Beer, D., Van Der Walt, J. & Bhero, S. 2011. A case study of additive
manufacturing process selection for a casting application using the analytic hierarchy process,
115th MetalCasting Congress, Chicago, 11-019, pp. 1-8.
[11] Kim, G.D. & Oh, Y.T. 2008. A benchmark study on the rapid prototyping processes and machines:
Quantitative comparisons of mechanical properties, accuracy, roughness, speed and material cost,
Proc. IMechE, 222(B).
[12] Dimitrov, D., Van Wijck, W., Schereve, K. & De Beer, N. 2003. On the achievable accuracy of
the three dimensional printing process for rapid prototyping, Proceedings of the 1st International
Conference on the Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping, pp. 575-582.
[13] Dimitrov, D., De Beer, N., De Beer, D. & Erfort, E. 2005. A comparative study between
capability profiles of RP processes with a focus on 3D-printing, Metalworking News, 4(1), pp. 57-
66.
[14] Pham, D.T. & Gault, R.S. 1998. A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies, International
Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture, 38, pp. 1257–1287.
[15] Foseco. 2005. Sand Mold and Core Coatings. http://www.fosecomet.com/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=15 (Accessed 23 October 2011).
[16] JISB0031. 1994. Technical Data Surface Roughness. http://www.misumiusa.com/
CategoryImages/Metric_2009_pdf/p2839.pdf (Accessed 16 August 2011).
[17] Groover, M.P. 2006. Fundamentals of modern manufacturing: Materials, processes, and systems,
3rd ed., Wiley.
[18] Beeley, P. 2001. Foundry technsology, 2nd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann.
[19] Brown, J.R. 1999. Foseco Non-ferrous Foundryman’s Handbook, 11th ed., Oxford, Butterworth-
Heinemann.
[20] Degarmo, E.P., Black, J.T. & Kohser, R.A. 2003. Materials and processes in manufacturing , 9th
ed., Wiley.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

142
Appendix 1: 2D drawings of steel bracket

143