Journal of Materials Processing Technology 211 (2011) 1336–1340

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Processing Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec

Method to determine hot permeability and strength of ceramic shell moulds

S. Amira a , D. Dubé b,∗ , R. Tremblay b
a
Aluminum Technology Centre, NRC-ATC, Saguenay, QC, Canada G7H 8C3
b
Department of Mining, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada G1V 0A6

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reports on an improved method to evaluate both the strength and the permeability of ceramic
Received 23 November 2010 shell specimens under high temperature conditions. In order to maintain safe testing conditions and
Received in revised form 1 March 2011 use lower testing pressure, a spherical wax model, larger than the standard ping-pong ball, was used
Accepted 3 March 2011
to prepare ceramic shells. Compressed air was introduced into ceramic shell specimen held at 900 ◦ C.
Available online 10 March 2011
Air flow and pressure drop across the shell wall were measured and hot permeability was calculated
according to Darcy’s law. Air pressure was subsequently increased and recorded up to bursting point. A
Keywords:
hoop stress formula was used to calculate the hot strength from the bursting pressure. This very simple
Hot permeability
Hot strength
method is easy to implement in foundries.
Ceramic shell © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Investment molding

1. Introduction nents that are capable of withstanding high temperatures. Proper

Hot permeability and hot strength, two properties closely
related to the performance of in-service investment casting shells,
are in fact their most reliable performance indicators (Mills, 1995).
Hot strength refers to the mould capacity to resist metallostatic
pressure and preserve the dimensional integrity of castings, while
hot permeability is required to promptly evacuate air and other
entrapped gases during metal filling. The permeability and strength
of shell materials are most often determined independently at room
temperature using two different set-ups; however, extrapolation
of their properties is unreliable and characterization at room tem-
perature does not illustrate shell mould behavior at high service
temperatures.
Hot permeability can be evaluated by a method well described
by Lang et al. (1988) and recommended by the Investment Casting
Institute (1979) using a ceramic shell built on the ping-pong ball
model. After drying and firing, compressed air is introduced into the
shell test specimen under high temperature. Pressure drop evolu-
tion with flow across the shell walls subsequently leads either to a
permeability factor or to absolute permeability using Darcy’s law
(Investment Casting Institute, 1979). Permeability index (similar to
the AFS number) may also be obtained from the seconds required
for 1000 ml of air compressed at 980 Pa to flow through this shell
(Beeley, 1972).
Hot strength is usually determined by the four-point bending
test which requires a tensile machine equipped with compo-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 418 656 3533; fax: +1 418 656 5343.
E-mail address: dominique.dube@gmn.ulaval.ca (D. Dubé).
test bars alignment, regular surface finish, and constant thick-
ness are crucial for sound results. This testing method is often
difficult to conduct, as it is strongly influenced by experimental
conditions and is rather inaccessible for small- and medium-sized
foundries.
Shell materials strength has also been evaluated using vari-
ous types of burst tests. Babu et al. (1990) have used spherical
shells pressurized with compressed air to test overall permeabil-
ity at room temperature and compared bending strength and hoop
strength. Chennakesava Reddy et al. (2000) used burst testing with
pressurized air to study the permeability and strength of spheri-
cal shells at room temperature and found that the burst test was
superior to the bend test in simulating the casting conditions and
failure rates observed in investment casting. In a more recent study,
the bursting resistance of square and cylindrical prismatic shells
has also been tested using pressurized water (Kline et al., 2009).
The authors’ predictions with regard to the finite element method
overestimated the resistance of the shells because of the presence
of natural defects that were difficult to anticipate.
The burst test was also found to better simulate the properties
of shells used in investment casting (Babu et al., 1990), contrary
to the bend test which determines the strength using a relatively
limited volume of material, less likely to contain defects capable of
rupturing during tests. These authors also found burst strength to
be significantly more sensitive to defects present in ceramic shells
compared to bending strength, although no test was performed to
find a more representative strength at high temperature.
The present study therefore explored an innovative method to
rapidly assess the hot permeability and hot strength of ceramic
shells using the same test specimen. Of interest is that this novel

0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2011.03.002
 S. Amira et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 211 (2011) 1336–1340 1337

Fig. 1. Spherical aluminum mould and hollow wax ball used as model (a); wax ball and Vycor glass tube assembly (b); and shell mould test specimens after dipping and
stuccoing (c).

approach requires no expensive equipment and can thus be easily 2.4. Hot permeability measurement
implemented in small foundries.
The hot permeability measurement was performed prior to the
2. Experimental hot strength measurement. In hot permeability mode (Fig. 2a),
the shell test specimen (5) was placed inside a horizontal tubu-
2.1. Materials lar furnace with an inner diameter of 100 mm and temperature
was gradually increased. The shell was held at 900 ◦ C for 30 min
A colloidal silica binder was used to prepare the shell speci- to obtain an even temperature distribution. The Vycor glass tube
mens. REMASOL® SP-30 was used as a binder for both the primary was then connected to the testing device, as shown in Fig. 2a, and
and back-up slurries. A single primary zircon layer was applied. compressed air was allowed to flow into the shell. The air flow rate
REMET® milled zircon GF (−325 mesh) was used as the filler mate- (F) was varied using the appropriate flowmeter (2) and the cor-
rial in the slurry. REMET® Zircon Sand A (+70–200 mesh) was used responding pressure drops (P = P1 − P0 ) were measured using a
as primary stuccoing sand. For the back-up layers, aluminosilicate
REMASIL® 48 RP325 (48% Al2 O3 , 52% SiO2 ) and REMASIL® 60 RP325
(60% Al2 O3 , 40% SiO2 ) (−325 mesh) were used as filler materials
in the slurry. Aluminosilicate REMASIL® 48 RG30 (+20–40 mesh)
was used as back-up stuccoing sand. Drying took place for approx-
imately 3 h between each coat and a total of three layers were
necessary for each shell.

2.2. Shell specimen preparation

Hollow wax balls (outer diameter 80 mm) were used as the

model for shell mould test specimens. Each wax ball was prepared
manually by pouring molten wax into the spherical cavity of an alu-
minum mould (Fig. 1a). The mould was rotated to evenly spread the
liquid wax on the walls of the mould. Once solid, the hollow wax
ball was extracted and connected to the end of a Vycor glass tube
with sticky wax (Fig. 1b). The end of the wax ball-Vycor tube assem-
bly was first dipped in the zircon slurry and stuccoed with zircon
sand to form the primary layer. The shell mould was then dipped in
the aluminosilicate slurry and stuccoed with aluminosilicate sand
to produce the secondary layer. Finally, the shell test specimen was
dipped in the aluminosilicate slurry without stuccoing to form the
sealing layer (Fig. 1c). Following a final drying period, the wax ball
was removed by flash firing which produced a thin ceramic shell
with thickness of approximately 2 mm (±0.2 mm).

2.3. Hot permeability and hot strength measurements

Fig. 2 shows the device used to measure the hot permeability

and hot strength of the shell test specimen. Valves a–d were used Fig. 2. Set-ups used for the measurement of (a) hot permeability and (b) hot strength
of shell test specimen. (1) pressure regulator; (2) flowmeters; (3) water manometer;
to put the device in either the hot permeability measurement mode (4) tube furnace; (5) shell test specimen; (6) pressure sensor; (7) data acquisition
(Fig. 2a), or the hot strength measurement mode (Fig. 2b). card. (a–d represent the valves).
1338 S. Amira et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 211 (2011) 1336–1340

water manometer (3). Darcy’s law was used to calculate the hot
permeability of shell according to the flow rates values and corre-
sponding pressure drop. An example of permeability calculation is
given further.

2.5. Hot strength measurement

The hot strength of the shell test specimen (5) was determined at
900 ◦ C using compressed air applied into the test specimen (Fig. 2b).
Air pressure was then gradually increased at a rate of close to
1.4 × 10−3 MPa s−1 by means of a pressure regulator (1) until burst-
ing of the shell was achieved. The corresponding bursting pressure
(Pb ) was then measured with the pressure sensor (6) connected to
a data acquisition card (7). Pressure variation over time within the
shell specimen was recorded by a computer. The data acquisition
rate was 10 Hz. Safety precautions were observed during the test to Fig. 3. Pressure drop variation (P) with the flow rate (F) through the walls of three
shell specimens tested under identical conditions. Linear regression was determined
protect both the operators and the equipment from debris thrown using the least squares method.
out by the bursting shells. For this purpose, a steel grid covered the
tube furnace.
by a linear regression in the case of three shell specimens tested at
900 ◦ C.
3. Results and discussion The slope s of the linear regression curve, as determined by
least squares method, was the proportionality coefficient between
3.1. Hot permeability determination pressure drop P and volume flow rate F, giving:

Hot permeability k is determined by Darcy’s law (in its differen-  (ro − ri )

s= (7)
tial form) as applied to flows through spherical shells: k 4ro ri

F kdP and hot permeability was expressed as:

=− (1)
4r 2 dr  (ro − ri )
k= (8)
s 4ro ri
where  is the dynamic viscosity of the flowing fluid
(4.78 × 10−5 N s m−2 for air at 900 ◦ C), k is the permeability (m2 ), From this example (Fig. 3), the calculated hot permeability was
and F is the volume flow rate (m3 s−1 ). Under these conditions, air k = 3.4 × 10−15 m2 with a relative error of approximately 10%, which
is compressible and considered an ideal gas: was mainly attributed to uncertainty as to shell thickness.
kdP ˚mass ˚mass
=− =− (2) 3.2. Hot strength determination
dr 4r 2  4r 2 (Mmole P/RT )
where ˚mass is the mass flow rate,  is the hot air density, Mmole Assuming that the shell specimen was a thin-walled spherical
is the molar mass of air, T is the temperature (K) and R the gas shell, the hot strength was equivalent to the hoop stress at burst-
constant. ing point. The formula used to determine the hot strength was
Rearrangement of Eq. (2) thus led to: therefore:
Pb ri
˚mass kMmole = (9)
dr = − PdP (3) 2t
4r 2 RT
where Pb is the bursting pressure (MPa), d is the internal radius of
Integration between ro and ri for the first term (outer and inner the spherical shell specimen (m) and t is its thickness (m).
radius of the shell specimen, respectively), and between P1 and P0 Using the bursting pressure Pb expressed in Fig. 4 and Eq. (9), the
for the second term (inner and outer pressures of shell test speci- hot strength of the shell was estimated to be 2.1 MPa, with a rela-
men, respectively) led to the following equation: tive error of approximately 10% which was essentially attributed to
˚mass
1 1
 kMmole uncertainty as to shell thickness and variations of bursting pressure.
− =− (P1 2 − P0 2 ) (4)
4 r1 r0 2RT
where, after rearrangement, Eq. (4) becomes:

˚   (r − r )  (P1 + P0 )
mass 1 0
= (P) (5)
k  4r0 r1 2P
where P represents the pressure prevailing at the location of flow
measurement. Assuming that for small pressure drop through shell
wall, (P1 + P0 )/2P ≈ 1, the following approximation was deemed
valid:
 (ro − ri )
P1 − P0 = P ∼
= F (6)
k 4ro ri
The method used to calculate the hot permeability for a set
of n-tested shell specimens is presented hereafter. As previously
described, the hot permeability assessment was based on the
recording of air flow F evolution with the corresponding pressure Fig. 4. Air pressure variation inside the shell test specimen and determination of
drop P through the shell specimen walls. Fig. 3 shows data fitted the bursting pressure (Pb ) at T = 900 ◦ C.
 S. Amira et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 211 (2011) 1336–1340 1339

Table 1
Comparison of various ceramic shell permeability and strength determination studies.

Method Test specimens Testing temp References

Model Shape/size

Permeability (absolute) Ping-pong ball (6–11 layers) Spherical (38 mm dia. × 5–6 mm)
High temp. Lang et al. (1988)
Bend test (mod. of rupture) Wax strips (N/A) Rectangular (dimensions not
given)

Permeability (index) Tennis ball (6 layers) Spherical (75 mm dia.)

Burst test (hoop strength) Room temp. Babu et al. (1990)
Bend test (mod. of rupture) Perspex strips (6 layers) Rectangular
(25 mm × 30 mm × 4 mm)

Permeability (index) Ping-pong ball (6 Spherical (38 mm

Chennakesava Reddy
Burst test (hoop strength) layers) dia. × 5 mm) Room temp.
et al. (2000)
Bend test (mod. of rupture) Wax strips (6 layers) Rectangular
(25 mm × 32 mm × 5 mm)

Permeability (AFS index and Darcy) Foam (5–8 layers) Cylindrical (30.5 mm
Room temp.
dia. × 76.2 mm long) (internal Kline et al. (2009)
dimensions)
Burst test (with pressurized water) Square prisms
(30.5 mm × 10.2 mm × 127 mm)
(internal dimensions)

Bend test (mod. of rupture) Foam strips (N/A) Rectangular (25.4 mm wide Room/high temp.
specimens)

Permeability (absolute) Hollow wax ball (3 Spherical (80 mm Present work

High temp.
Burst test (hoop strength) layers) dia. × 2 mm)

3.3. Discussion to green or fired samples at room temperature; high temperatures

The sequential of hot permeability and hot strength measure-
ments at high temperature on the same specimen were simple to
execute, thereby enabling to easily replace the four-point bend
test with a burst test. Compared to the conventional hot per-
meability test described by Lang et al. (1988) and recommended
by the Investment Casting Institute (1979), the advantage of a
larger wax model lies in the greater ceramic shell surface exposed
to the conditions encountered in investment mould casting
preparation.
Another benefit of using a burst test is that the defects gen-
erated within the ceramic shell during the manufacturing process
(drying and de-waxing steps), more resemble those encountered in
foundry operation. In addition, the burst test requires no machining
to obtain a smooth surface finish which is mandatory in the four-
point bend test method. Besides, compared to four-point bend test,
tensile stresses in the spherical shell are more uniformly distributed
over the shell volume during testing.
Machined specimens used in the four-point bend test are sub-
ject to both tensile and compression stresses which is far from the
stress distribution in service conditions and during the manufac-
turing process. Furthermore, this test may lead to errors caused
by unequal moments at the inner loading points, twisting result-
ing from skewed contact lines, wedging stresses at the contact
points, and counter moments produced by friction at the loading
points/specimen interface (Hoagland et al., 1976). Calculating the
strength from the maximal bending torque located in the mid-
dle of the sample may also lead to an over-estimation of the
strength. Indeed, in the case of brittle materials, the failure may
not necessarily be initiated at the point of the highest nominal
stress, but rather at the greatest surface or volume critical flaw
(Quinn, 1991).
More important, using the four-point bend test to determine hot
strength is not only technically difficult but also requires sophisti-
cated equipments, which may limit its access for many investment
casting professionals. It is interesting to note that the four-point
bend test, as described by the Investment Casting Institute, pertains
tests, on the other hand, are never mentioned (Quinn, 1991).
The burst test enables operators to avoid all of the above-
mentioned drawbacks (unequal moments, twisting, wedging, and
friction), as there is no direct contact between the shell specimen
and a loading device (typically knife edges or cylindrical rollers
in the case of four-point bend test). In contrast, during the burst
test, stress concentration sources are minimized because (1) the
pressure is applied uniformly over the inner surface of the shell
spherical specimen, (2) the shell specimen has no edges, and (3)
the thickness of the shell is relatively uniform.
Contrary to the four-point bend test, the burst test at high tem-
perature requires additional safety precautions. In this study, the
thickness of the tested shell specimens was limited to approx-
imately 3 mm so as to safely maintain the maximum bursting
pressure (Pb ) below 0.35 MPa. The heating elements of the fur-
nace were also covered with a ceramic shield to protect against
the bursting fragments. In this regard, a strong wire mesh enclo-
sure was placed in front of the furnace during testing to collect any
fragment while allowing for the evacuation of the compressed air
released during the bursting process. A ventilation system was also
employed to collect the dust.
Most of the leading studies on permeability and strength testing
of ceramic shells used in investment casting are listed in Table 1 and
represent the wide variety of methods and test specimens used in
different laboratories, thus making it difficult to present an accurate
comparison of shell performances.
4. Conclusions
• The method proposed in this study allows for the sequential eval-
uation of both the hot permeability and hot strength of ceramic
shells used for investment casting.
• Hot permeability and hot strength can be determined using the
same device and with the same specimen, contrary to conven-
tional methods where permeability and strength are assessed
using different specimens with various models, shapes and sizes.
1340 S. Amira et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 211 (2011) 1336–1340
• Hot strength is determined much easier by burst test than by
four-point bend test.
• Contrary to the four-point bend test, the burst test provides the
added advantage of simulating stresses applied on ceramic shell
moulds under service conditions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for their financial
support. Special thanks go to M. Choquette, J. Frenette, as well
as to M. Larouche (Laval University) for the microanalysis, X-ray
diffraction and metallography, respectively.
References
Babu, K.M., Jebaraj, P.M., Chowdiah, M.P., 1990. Standardization of investment cast-
ing process using modified binder hydrolysis. Bulletin of Materials Science 13
(3), 227–234.
Beeley, P.R., 1972. Foundry Technology. Halsted Press Division. John Wiley and Sons
Inc., New York, pp. 149–150.
Chennakesava Reddy, A., Murti, V.S.R., Jebaraj, P.M., 2000. A new technique for mea-
surement of the strength of ceramic shells in the precision casting process.
Journal of Testing and Evaluation 28 (3), 224–226.
Hoagland, R.G., Marschall, C.W., Duckworth, W.H., 1976. Reduction of errors
in ceramic bend tests. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 59 (5–6),
189–192.
Investment Casting Institute, 1979. Ceramics Testing Guidebook, 136 Summit
Avenue, Montvale, New Jersey 07645-1720 USA, p. 167.
Kline, D.M., Lekakh, S.N., Richards, V.L., Chandrashekhara, K., Chen, J., 2009. Stucco
size comparison and simulated pressure loading of investment casting shells.
AFS Transactions, Paper No. 09-072, 1–13.
Lang, W., Learmonth, D., McCallum, R., 1988. Hot permeability of shell moulds:
its measurement and place in process technology. In: Proceedings of the 36th
Annual Meeting of the Investment Casting Institute , p. 29.
Mills, D., 1995. Investment Materials and Ceramic Shell Manufacture. Institute of
Materials, University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 65–122.
Quinn, G.D., 1991. Strength and Proof Testing ASM Engineered Materials Handbook,
Ceramics and Glasses, vol. 4. ASM International, Materials Park, OH, USA, pp.
585–598.