6.

Process Planning and Costing

Casting process planning involves selection of the most appropriate casting process, and the various steps and parameters involved. Early process planning, preferably before freezing the final design of the cast part, combined with product-process compatibility analysis enables minor modifications to part design that can significantly reduce the overall cost. In this chapter, we will describe a systematic methodology to select the most appropriate casting process, followed by casting process planning, and estimation of tooling, material and conversion costs in producing a casting. 6.1 Casting Process Selection Casting process selection directly influences other major decisions such as the type of tooling, process parameters, extent of machining, heat treatment and quality control procedures. These in turn affect the economic quantity, tooling and labour costs, and leadtime for sample casting production. There are at least a dozen major casting processes (sand casting, investment casting, gravity die casting, pressure die casting, centrifugal casting, lost foam casting, vacuum casting, squeeze casting, etc.). Many of them have further classifications depending on the moulding, core-making, melting and pouring practice, leading to a hundred or more different casting processes. Further differences arise with the type of metal or alloy being poured (sand casting of grey iron is significantly different from the sand casting of steel or aluminium). Even taking the major families of metals (grey iron, ductile iron, steel, alloy steel, aluminium-based alloys, copper-based alloys, zinc-based alloys, etc.) the number of metal-process combinations can exceed a thousand or more. Each metal-process combination is characterised by a different range of geometric features that can be produced (minimum section thickness, minimum core size, etc.), achievable quality (surface finish, internal soundness, etc.) and production parameters (sample lead time, economic lot size, etc.). For example, aluminium-alloy parts produced by sand casting must have wall thickness greater than 4 mm, whereas in steel parts the minimum allowable wall thickness can be 4.5 mm. In contrast, pressure die cast aluminium parts can have wall thickness as low as 0.75 mm. In practice, the process characteristics also depend on the equipment, manpower skills, quality management practices and other company-dependent factors. This can be captured in a band of values for each process capability characteristic. For example, the minimum wall thickness of sand-cast aluminium parts can vary from 3.5 mm to 4.5 mm. To select a feasible casting process, we have to compare part requirements or attributes (wall thickness, surface finish, order quantity, etc.) with the corresponding capabilities of

the process. For example, if an aluminium-alloy sand cast part has a minimum wall thickness of 3.75 mm, in comparison to the process capability range of 3.5 to 4.5 mm, we can say that the part and process are compatible with respect to the minimum wall thickness criterion. Similarly, other requirements can be checked, and the process that satisfies all the requirements of the part is considered a feasible process. The above approach is simple and easy to apply, and useful to select a set of feasible processes. But the approach does not capture the real situation of process capabilities, and secondly, it is difficult to compare two different feasible processes (with respect to a given part) in a quantitative manner. For example, it is difficult to accept that a wall thickness of 3.49 mm would imply complete incompatibility where as 3.51 mm would imply complete compatibility. To overcome this contradiction and reflect real-life situations more realistically, we need to employ fuzzy logic. In fuzzy logic approach, the part-process compatibility value will gradually grow from 0 to 1, instead of suddenly jumping from 0 (incompatible) to 1 (fully compatible). In this approach, we need to introduce two more limits: minimum desirable and maximum desirable values of a process characteristic. Thus, if we take minimum desirable value of minimum wall thickness as 4 mm, then a value of 3.75 indicates 50% compatibility with respect to the wall thickness criterion.
Normal range
1

Extreme range

Compatibility

Vmin_abs Vmin_desire Vreq Vmax_desire Vmax_abs Process capability Figure 6.1. Fuzzy mapping of process capability For analysing the part-process compatibility, the range of process capability values need to be mapped on a normalized scale. Let Vmin_abs, Vmin_desire, Vmax_desire and Vmax_abs represent the absolute minimum, desirable minimum, desirable maximum and absolute maximum values, respectively, of the process capability for a given criterion (Fig.6.1). If the value of part requirement falls within Vmin_desire and Vmax_desire, the part-process are considered to be fully compatible. If the part requirement value is between Vmin_abs and Vmin_desire, or between Vmax_desire and Vmax_abs, then the compatability is considered to be less than 1 but more than 0. If the part requirement value is less than Vmin_abs or more than Vmax_abs, then the compatibility is considered to be zero. The part-process compatibility P(xi) for a given value xi of an attribute i can be calculated using the following equation. 2

P(xi) = 1 if Vmin_desire < xi < Vmax_desire P(xi) = (xi Vmin_abs) / (Vmin_desire Vmin_abs) if Vmin_abs < xi < Vmin_desire P(xi) = (Vmax_abs xi) / Vmax_abs Vmax_desire) if Vmax_desire < xi < Vmax_abs P(xi) = 0 if xi < Vmin_abs or xi > Vmax_abs For example, let us take the surface finish capability of sand moulding process as 6, 12, 25 and 50 m indicating Vmin_abs, Vmin_desire, Vmax_desire and Vmax_abs respectively. If a particular part has surface finish requirement of 1.4 m, the part-process compatibility for surface finish criterion will be zero, since the requirement falls outside even the absolute range. If we consider an alternate process, say investment casting with the four limits as 0.8, 1.6, 3.2 and 6.4 m, then the part-process compatibility will be 0.75, implying that it would be possible to achieve the requirement, but the process control has to be tighter. The other way to achieve part-process compatibility would be to modify the surface finish requirement of the part (to more than 6 m) so that it falls within the range of limits for sand casting. The overall compatibility of a part and process can be computed by taking a weighted average of the part-process compatibility with respect to different criteria. 6.2 Process Steps and Parameters Preliminary process planning involves deciding the methods, major operations and key parameters (quality checks) for each activity in casting production. Detailed process planning involves step-by-step work instructions related to individual operations specifying the sequence and duration of operations, equipment, and resources (material, energy and labour) required. Important activities in sand casting process include mould sand preparation, core sand preparation, moulding, core making, melting, pouring, shakeout, fettling and cleaning. Key parameters involved in these activities are outlined here. Mould sand preparation and core sand preparation involve selecting the sand type and ingredients, mixing them in an appropriate proportion, processing, checking the resulting properties of the sand mix, and adding more ingredients (if necessary and possible). The ingredients and processing depend on the method (green sand, dry sand, sodium silicate, no bake, hot box, cold box, etc.). These affect sand properties such as permeability, green strength, dry strength, flowability and collapsibility. These in turn affect casting quality. For example, low green sand strength may lead to sand inclusions, and low permeability coupled with high moisture content may lead to blow holes. Moulding involves compacting the moulding sand around a pattern. The mould layout (mould size and number of cavities per mould) must be decided to obtain an optimal sand to metal ratio: a high ratio leads to higher sand cost, whereas a low ratio may lead to solidification related problems. Process parameters related to moulding include compaction pressure and time, heating temperature (if necessary), and weight to be placed on the mould to prevent lifting of cope. Major quality checks include mould hardness and finish.

Core making involves compacting sand into a core box followed by some processing depending on the method. Key process parameters are heating temperature and curing time for hot box; drying temperature and curing time for cold box and no bake process; heating temperature and curing time for shell core; and gas quantity, blowing pressure and blowing time for sodium silicate core. Quality checks include surface finish and core hardness. Melting activity involves furnace preparation and charging. Furnace preparation deals with furnace lining and preparation of coke bed (for cupola). Charging involves addition of metal ingots, scrap and alloying elements in the furnace to get the desired composition. Metal charge composition is the most important parameter in melting activity. Pouring involves transfer of liquid metal from furnace to ladle and pouring into mould cavities. Key process parameters are pouring temperature, pouring time, pouring height and use of exothermic materials. This is perhaps the single most important activity affecting casting quality. Fast pouring leads to turbulence, causing higher oxidation, air entrapment and mould erosion; slow pouring coupled with low pouring temperature leads to poor fluidity, causing cold shuts and misruns. Shakeout and cleaning operations begin after casting solidification, the time for which depends on the casting alloy, weight, geometry and process. Shakeout involves separating the sand from the casting. This is followed by fettling and cleaning. During fettling, the gating and feeding elements are removed from the casting by gas cutting or chipping. The casting is then cleaned by shot blasting, grinding, tumbling, sand blasting or hydro blasting to remove adhering sand particles and burrs. Key process parameters include as blast speed, water pressure and ball size depending on the equipment used and surface finish required. There are two main approaches for process planning: generative and variant. Generative process planning involves automatic generation of process plan for a new part based on detailed manufacturing information stored in a database along with decision-making logic. The logic is however, difficult to evolve and implement in practice. Variant process planning uses group technology: the grouping of a new part is identified, based on which a standard process plan is retrieved and applied. The standard plan may not however, be suitable for the new part. The limitations of the two approaches can be overcome by using a semi-generative approach. This involves retrieving the process plan of a similar part (variant approach) and then using a set of rules for automatically modifying the retrieved plan (generative approach). To facilitate retrieval of a similar casting, the following attributes can be compared: alloy, casting weight, casting size, minimum section thickness, maximum section thickness, minimum core hole diameter, shape complexity, dimensional tolerance, surface finish, maximum allowable void size, order quantity, sample lead time and production rate. The extent of similarity between the attributes of a new casting and a previous casting can be determined using the following equation.
Sim( N , O ) = wi sim( ni , oi )
i =1 n

where, 4

Sim(N,O)= Overall similarity of new casting to old casting sim(ni, oi)= Similarity between new and old casting with respect to an attribute ni = Value of attribute i of old casting oi = Value of attribute i of new casting wi = Weight (importance) of attribute i n = Number of attributes An old casting having the highest similarly with the new casting is selected, and its process plan is copied for the new casting. Individual steps in the plan can be modified, if necessary. This requires a library of alternative methods for performing each casting activity (moulding, melting, etc.) along with relevant steps and process parameters. For semi-automatic modification of the retrieved process plan, a knowledge base in the form of if-then rules can be used to select a method from library and to adjust its process parameters depending on casting requirements. The process plan is usually meant for resource planning and quality control during actual production of castings. It is also required for an accurate estimation of tooling, material and conversion costs. Concurrent planning of the casting process along with part design enables early cost estimation, facilitating design changes for overall cost reduction (Fig.6.2).

Fig. 6.2. Casting process planning and cost estimation

6.3 Tooling Cost Estimation Tooling includes pattern and core box for sand casting, and metal mould for die casting as well as investment casting (for wax patterns). Their cost is driven by the material and manufacturing (mainly machining) of the tooling. The material is decided depending on the tool life required, which is in turn influenced by the order quantity. The tool manufacturing cost is driven by its geometric complexity. The shape complexity X can be estimated from the solid model of the casting based on its surface area, volume and number of cored features as follows. where, i = Regression coefficients Ca = Area complexity factor = 1 ( surface area of cube of equal volume / surface area of solid) = 1 (6 V2/3 / A) V = Volume of part A = Surface area of part Cc = Core complexity factor = 1 (1/(nc+1)0.5) nc = Number of cores The area complexity factor is derived by comparing the surface area of a part with the surface area of a cube of equal volume. This is based on the assumption that a cube is the simplest shape (considering manufacturing, otherwise it should be a sphere) and has the least surface area for a given volume. Thus the area complexity factor for a cube is 0, and increases for other shapes. Hammering a cube into a plate increases its surface area, but not necessarily increase its geometric complexity significantly, as (erroneously) indicated by the area complexity factor. Hence we also consider the complexity introduced by other features, particularly those requiring cores. A part with no cores has a core complexity factor of 0. With just one core added, the factor jumps to 0.293. With every additional core, the factor becomes 0.423, 0.500 and 0.553. If the number of cores is already large, adding one more will not significantly increase the core complexity factor. The regression coefficients are determining by analysing the perceived shape complexity of a variety of castings by a set of modelling experts. Based on the analysis, the following values of regression coefficients were obtained: 0 = 0.14, a = 0.3 and c = 0.8. This implies that the core complexity factor is a better indicator than area complexity factor, but both are required. The equation may give negative values of complexity for extremely simple shapes (such as a rectangular block without any cored feature), which can be rounded off to zero. It gives good values for medium to high complexity parts, for which it is important to estimate shape complexity more accurately. A similar empirical equation can be developed for tooling cost estimation by analysing the pattern, core box or mould costs for a variety of castings. An equation for the cost of medium size cast iron tooling (patterns and core boxes for sand casting) is given here. Costtool = 1000 x exp (0.63 Vc1/3 + 2.3 Xc + 4.8 Ia + 0.74) 6 X = 0 + a Ca + c Cc

Where, Costtool = Cast iron pattern cost in INR Vc = Casting volume in m3 Xc = Shape complexity of casting on 0-1 scale Ia = Accuracy index on 0-1 scale Since the equation includes the total casting volume and shape complexity (which in turn includes core complexity factor, which in turn takes into account the number of cores), it reflects the cost of both pattern and core boxes (if any). 6.4 Material Cost Estimation Material cost includes direct and indirect materials. Cast metal or alloy that appears in the product constitutes direct material cost. This can be determined from the casting weight. However, the actual amount of metal consumed is more, owing to irrecoverable losses during melting, pouring and fettling. The direct material cost is given by: Costmetal = cc Wc fm fp ff Where, cc = Cost per unit weight of cast metal (INR/kg) Wc = Casting weight in kg fm = Melting loss factor = 1.01-1.10 fp = Pouring loss factor = 1.01-1.07 ff = Fettling loss factor =1.01-1.07 The melting loss factor is highest for cupola (1.1 or more), followed by oil/gas fired furnace, electric arc furnace and the least for induction furnace (as low as 1.01). Indirect materials are essential for production but are not included in the product. Moulding sand, dispensable cores and feeding aids constitute indirect materials, depending on the process. The cost of moulding sand depends on the type of sand (silica, olivine, zircon, sodium silicate, etc.), composition (amount of binder), mould size and layout. Core sand cost mainly depends on the type of sand (depending on the core-making process) and volume of cores. Cost modifiers for mould rejection, core rejection, casting rejection and sand reclamation need to be considered. Costmouldsand = cms Wms fcm frm / nc Costcoresand = ccs Wcs fcc frc

Where, nc = Number of castings (cavities) per mould cms = Cost per unit weight of mould sand (INR/kg) ccs = Cost per unit weight of core sand (INR/kg) Wms = Weight of mould sand Wcs = Weight of core sand fcm = Mould sand recycling factor = 0.01-1.0 fcc = Core sand recycling factor = 0.01-1.0 frm = Mould rejection factor = 1.0-1.1 frc = Core rejection factor = 1.0-1.1 7

Sand recycling factor indicates how much new sand is required for each mould or core. A low factor (say 0.01) implies high recycling (say 99%), where as a factor of 1 indicates a process that requires completely fresh sand for each mould or core. The rejection factor is included to take into account breakages or damages. A value of 1 indicates zero damages. The mould sand cost is divided by the number of casting cavities to obtain the cost of mould sand cost per casting. The cost of indirect materials (such as insulating sleeves, chills and chaplets) also needs to be added depending on their use. 6.5 Conversion Cost Estimation We will consider two major elements of conversion cost: energy and labour. Energy cost: The energy required for melting the metal and superheating it up to the pouring temperature can be calculated using a thermodynamic equation. In practice, more energy is required to take into account furnace efficiency and casting yield. Where, ce = Cost of unit energy Wc = Casting weight Y = Casting yield L = Latent heat of cast metal cps = Specific heat of cast metal at solidus temperature cpa = Specific heat of cast metal at room temperature Tp = Pouring temperature of metal Ts = Solidus temperature of metal Ta = Ambient temperature f = Factor for furnace efficiency (1.4-1.8) for induction furnace Costmelt = ce (Wc / Y) [L + Cps (Tp Ts) + Cpa (Ts Ta)] f

Other energy-intensive activities include mould making, core-making, cleaning and fettling. These costs can be assigned based on weight. The rate of assigning can be calculated by dividing other energy costs over a period of time by the total weight of castings manufactured during that span. Labour cost depends on the equipment, labour and time required for various activities in casting production. Some of the activities such as melting, sand preparation and shakeout are performed for a batch. In such activities, the average time per part is calculated depending. The labour cost for a particular activity is given by: Costlabour = clabour nw ( / ) / nc Where, clabour = Unit labour cost per worker per unit time nw = Number of workers involved in the activity = Time required for activity i per component = Worker efficiency (affecting actual time required) nc = Number of castings handled in the activity 8