GSC Casting and Manufacturing

Aluminum Foundry Polymer Trial Summary

July 2013

Aluminum Foundry Polymer Trial

Initial Trial Summary
Polymer trials in the Aluminum Foundry were set to begin in July of 2013. In
preparation for this trial, the current oil which was previously used in the quenching process
was emptied from the High Properties unit, and the unit was then cleaned thoroughly using a
cleaning agent known as T.S.P. (Tri-Sodium Phosphate). The unit was flushed several times to
clean residual oil from the internal workings of the pump and tank.
After the cleaning took place, the unit was then filled with a polymer/water solution
(1000 gal. of water and 165 gal. of polymer). The solution was allowed to mix for 5-10 minutes
and then a sample was pulled on 7/8/2013 and sent to the material testing lab.
Initial lab testing done by Mike Snow prior to the polymer trial showed that the most
favorable polymer concentration to use in the High Properties unit would be a 15% polymer
concentration. This concentration would wield the following standards found through
observing the cooling curve of the solution:
1. A peak cooling rate of 120 per second (minimum).
2. A vapor phase duration of 5-10 seconds.

Vapor Phase Duration

Peak cooling rate

Written by: Nicole Leavitt

GSC Casting and Manufacturing

Aluminum Foundry Polymer Trial Summary
July 2013
Initial testing of the mixture pulled from the high properties unit on 7/8/2013 showed an
initial concentration of 14.2% polymer which produced the following results:
1. A peak cooling rate of 78-82 per second.
3. A vapor phase duration of 12-18 seconds.
Further additions were then made to the unit (37.2 gal. water and 17.2 gal. polymer), as
calculated by the polymer log put into place by Mike Snow, to bring the solution in the High
Properties unit to a 15% concentration. The solution was then allowed to mix for 5-10 minutes
before another sample was pulled and sent to the lab for testing.

Problem
Testing of the 15% polymer concentration from the High Properties unit showed
unfavorable results. The concentration of the solution was confirmed in the lab and the cooling
curve results for this concentration were as follows:
1. A peak cooling rate of 80-95
2. A vapor phase duration of 16-20 seconds.
Several different tests were performed on the 15% polymer solution, all of which
confirmed the above mentioned data. (See cooling curve charts for test results).

Method
Further lab testing then took place to determine why the High Properties solution at 15%
concentration was not imitating results found through prior lab testing. The following variables
were then tested to observe their affect:
Polymer ConcentrationIn a small scale lab setting, the sample taken from the High Properties unit was diluted
from a 15% concentration to a 14% concentration by adding tap water. Further dilution of the
High Properties sample took place taking the polymer to a 13.5% concentration solution, 13.4%
concentration solution, 13% concentration solution, 12.5% concentration solution, and 12.2%
concentration solution. Lowering the concentration of polymer seemed to directly affect the
polymers cooling curve. (See cooling curve charts for test results). The lower the concentration,
the shorter the vapor phase duration would become. However, the peak cooling rate did not
increase and the results were not readily repeatable in a lab setting.
The entire polymer concentration in the High Properties unit itself was dropped from a
15% concentration solution, to 13% concentration solution, and then to a 12.2% concentration
solution. Results from testing on each solution determined that the concentration drop did
slightly improve the vapor phase duration, but did not improve the peak cooling rate. These

Written by: Nicole Leavitt

GSC Casting and Manufacturing

Aluminum Foundry Polymer Trial Summary
July 2013
results were also not readily repeatable in a lab setting. (See cooling curve charts for test
results).
Temperature of SolutionOptimal temperature for the polymer solution is between 60-80 F. Testing temperature
in the lab setting was approximately 70 F. Testing was then performed on a 13% concentration
solution with the solution being near 60 F and 90F. Varying the temperature of the solution
did not have any positive or negative affect on the results. (See cooling curve charts for test
results.)
Original Polymer vs. Virgin Polymer (used in the High Properties unit)A small sample of the original polymer used in the small scale lab testing was kept for
future testing purposes. A 14.2% polymer concentration was then mixed in the lab to test
whether or not initial testing had wielded favorable results. (See cooling curve charts for test
results). Results found on the original polymer did in fact mimic the cooling curve of the oil
originally used in the quenching process.
A sample of the virgin polymer which had been used in the High Properties unit (but
not yet mixed into the unit or diluted) was pulled and mixed to a 14.6% polymer concentration
in the lab. Testing of the virgin polymer also mimicked the cooling curve of the oil originally
used in the quenching process, and met the standards mentioned previously for a favorable
cooling curve.
It was then determined that the polymer itself was not causing the unfavorable results in
the High Properties unit, but rather some kind of contamination which had taken place when
the polymer was mixed into the unit itself.
T.S.P ContaminationThe samples mixed in the lab from the original polymer and the virgin polymer which
showed favorable cooling curve results were then contaminated with .200 grams of T.S.P, which
was the cleaning agent used to clean the High Properties unit once the oil had been removed.
Testing on the solutions showed that there was virtually no change from the original cooling
curves without the T.S.P contamination, and the cooling curves derived from the contaminated
solutions. (See cooling curve charts for test results).
D.I vs. Tap waterIn prior lab testing, all solutions were diluted using city tap water, but the polymer in
the High Properties unit, however, was diluted using D.I. water. To test for water
contamination, two new samples were then pulled from the original polymer; one was then
mixed to a 15% concentration solution with tap water, and the other was mixed to a 15%
concentration solution with D.I. water. When the cooling curves on these solutions were
compared, virtually no difference was found between the two samples, and favorable results
were still seen.

Written by: Nicole Leavitt

GSC Casting and Manufacturing

Aluminum Foundry Polymer Trial Summary
July 2013
This same series of tests were also performed using the virgin polymer, the same outcomes
were seen.
Oil ContaminationThe virgin polymer at 15% concentration (diluted with D.I water) was then used and
contaminated with 1 ml of oil which resulted in a 0.060% overall oil contamination of the
sample. Testing on the contaminated solution showed a slight negative affect from the testing
performed on the non-contaminated solution. To test for linear contamination affects, the
solution was then contaminated further to a 0.117% overall contamination, 0.235% overall
contamination and 0.470% overall contamination. Increasing the amount of oil contamination
did not appear to affect the cooling curve in a negative manner, but testing results were not
readily repeatable in a lab setting. (See cooling curve charts for test results.)
Oil contamination + Agitation
The virgin polymer solution at 15% concentration which had been contaminated with oil
was then placed into a jar with a lid and agitated in an attempt to better emulsify the oil
contamination into the polymer solution. The solution was then poured into the testing
container only seconds after agitation had ceased. The solution was then subjected to a quench
test and the results were observed. Testing for this solution showed an unfavorable cooling
curves very similar to the cooling curves observed with the 15% polymer/water mixture
originally pulled from the High Properties unit. This portion of testing was repeated several
times with the only changing variable being the time between quenching and when the
agitation had ceased. The longer the solution was left to sit after agitation and before it was
subjected to a quench, the more favorable the results. (See cooling curve charts for test results.)
Agitation
A new sample using virgin polymer and D.I water was mixed to a 15% solution. This
solution was not contaminated with any agents, but was subjected to agitation. Testing on this
solution showed that the agitation did not negatively affect the cooling curve and wielded
favorable results. Several tests were performed on this solution, all of which experienced the
same outcome. (See cooling curve charts for test results.)

Conclusion
When the new polymer medium was added to the existing High Properties unit, the unit
had not been completely rid of its former oil quench and had contaminated the polymer
medium. To avoid this problem, a new High Properties unit will be created for the polymer
medium to be used.

Written by: Nicole Leavitt