Task 1 foundry

Question 1
a) Outline the common/anticipated operational dangers and formulate a detailed criteria for
foundry works best practices applicable in both automated and semi-automated foundry set-
ups.
Foundry operations, whether automated or semi-automated, involve handling molten metals,
heavy machinery, and high temperatures, presenting significant hazards. Below are the common
operational dangers and a detailed set of best practices to mitigate them:
Common Operational Dangers
1. Burns and Heat Stress: Exposure to molten metal, hot surfaces, and high ambient
temperatures can cause severe burns or heat-related illnesses.
2. Explosions: Moisture in molds or improper material handling can lead to steam
explosions when molten metal is introduced.
3. Toxic Fumes and Dust: Melting metals release harmful gases and particulate matter,
posing respiratory risks.
4. Mechanical Hazards: Moving machinery, cranes, and conveyors can cause crushing
injuries or amputations.
5. Noise and Vibration: Prolonged exposure to loud equipment can result in hearing loss or
musculoskeletal issues.
6. Ergonomic Hazards: Repetitive tasks and heavy lifting increase the risk of strain
injuries.
7. Electrical Hazards: Faulty wiring or equipment in proximity to conductive materials can
lead to shocks or electrocution.
Best Practices Criteria
To ensure safety and efficiency in both automated and semi-automated foundries, the following
practices are recommended:
1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE):

o Use heat-resistant clothing, gloves, and face shields to protect against burns.
o Provide respiratory protection (e.g., masks or respirators) for fume and dust
exposure.
o Mandate hearing protection (e.g., earplugs) and safety shoes with hard hats.
2. Training and Education:

o Conduct regular safety training on hazard recognition and emergency procedures.

o Educate workers on specific risks tied to their tasks, tailored to automation levels.
3. Engineering Controls:

o Install effective ventilation systems to remove fumes and dust.

 o Equip machinery with guards and barriers to prevent contact with moving parts.
o Leverage automation to minimize manual handling where feasible.
4. Administrative Controls:

o Implement job rotation to reduce prolonged exposure to heat, noise, or repetitive

tasks.
o Schedule regular breaks to combat heat stress and fatigue.
o Use clear signage to mark hazardous zones and equipment.
5. Emergency Preparedness:

o Provide accessible fire extinguishers and suppression systems for fire risks.
o Maintain well-stocked first aid kits with trained personnel on-site.
o Develop and practice evacuation plans through regular drills.
6. Maintenance and Inspection:

o Perform routine checks on machinery, electrical systems, and PPE to ensure

functionality.
o Store materials properly to prevent moisture ingress or chemical reactions.
7. Health Monitoring:

o Offer periodic medical check-ups to detect early signs of occupational illnesses.

o Monitor air quality and noise levels to ensure compliance with safety standards.
These practices are adaptable to both automated foundries (emphasizing equipment safety and
monitoring) and semi-automated setups (focusing on worker interaction with machinery).

b) Compositional Analysis and Properties of Cupola Charge

A 1000 kg cupola charge is provided in Table Q1b. The tasks are to determine the final
composition, predict physical properties before heat treatment, and explain sulfur retention
during melting.
Table Q1b: Cupola Charge
Constitu
ent Wt (kg) C% Si% Mn% P% S%
Pig iron 250 3.50 2.5 0.8 0.20 0.02
No.1
Pig iron 150 3.5 3.0 0.6 0.10 0.015
No.2
Cast iron 350 3.5 3.0 0.8 0.20 0.010
scrap
Foundry 200 3.5 2.8 0.6 0.15 0.02
returns
Constitu
ent Wt (kg) C% Si% Mn% P% S%
Steel 50 0.30 0.30 1.0 0.04 0.03
scrap

Total weight = 250 + 150 + 350 + 200 + 50 = 1000 kg (verified).

i) Determine the Final Analysis of the Cupola
To find the final composition, calculate the weighted average of each element (C, Si, Mn, P, S)
using the formula:
Final % of element = (Σ (Weight_i × %Element_i)) / Total Weight
Since total weight is 1000 kg, this simplifies to:
Final % = (Σ (Weight_i × %Element_i)) / 1000
 Carbon (C):

o Pig iron No.1: 250 × 3.50 = 875

o Pig iron No.2: 150 × 3.5 = 525
o Cast iron scrap: 350 × 3.5 = 1225
o Foundry returns: 200 × 3.5 = 700
o Steel scrap: 50 × 0.30 = 15
o Total = 875 + 525 + 1225 + 700 + 15 = 3340
o Final C% = 3340 / 1000 = 3.34%
 Silicon (Si):

o Pig iron No.1: 250 × 2.5 = 625

o Pig iron No.2: 150 × 3.0 = 450
o Cast iron scrap: 350 × 3.0 = 1050
o Foundry returns: 200 × 2.8 = 560
o Steel scrap: 50 × 0.30 = 15
o Total = 625 + 450 + 1050 + 560 + 15 = 2700
o Final Si% = 2700 / 1000 = 2.70%
 Manganese (Mn):

o Pig iron No.1: 250 × 0.8 = 200

o Pig iron No.2: 150 × 0.6 = 90
o Cast iron scrap: 350 × 0.8 = 280
o Foundry returns: 200 × 0.6 = 120
o Steel scrap: 50 × 1.0 = 50
o Total = 200 + 90 + 280 + 120 + 50 = 740
o Final Mn% = 740 / 1000 = 0.74%
  Phosphorus (P):

o Pig iron No.1: 250 × 0.20 = 50

o Pig iron No.2: 150 × 0.10 = 15
o Cast iron scrap: 350 × 0.20 = 70
o Foundry returns: 200 × 0.15 = 30
o Steel scrap: 50 × 0.04 = 2
o Total = 50 + 15 + 70 + 30 + 2 = 167
o Final P% = 167 / 1000 = 0.167%
 Sulfur (S):

o Pig iron No.1: 250 × 0.02 = 5

o Pig iron No.2: 150 × 0.015 = 2.25
o Cast iron scrap: 350 × 0.010 = 3.5
o Foundry returns: 200 × 0.02 = 4
o Steel scrap: 50 × 0.03 = 1.5
o Total = 5 + 2.25 + 3.5 + 4 + 1.5 = 16.25
o Final S% = 16.25 / 1000 = 0.01625%
Final Composition:
 C: 3.34%
 Si: 2.70%
 Mn: 0.74%
 P: 0.167%
 S: 0.01625%

ii) Predict, Giving Relevant Assumptions, the Physical Properties of the Resultant Iron
Before Heat Treatment
The composition (C: 3.34%, Si: 2.70%) indicates this is a gray cast iron (C > 2.1%, high Si
promotes graphite formation). Physical properties depend on the microstructure, influenced by
composition and cooling rate. Here’s the prediction:
 Carbon Equivalent (CE):

o CE = C + Si/4 + P/2 = 3.34 + 2.70/4 + 0.167/2

o = 3.34 + 0.675 + 0.0835 = 4.0985
o CE < 4.3 (eutectic point), suggesting a slightly hypoeutectic gray cast iron with
primary austenite and eutectic cells.
 Microstructure:

o High C and Si, moderate Mn (0.74%), and low S (0.01625%) favor flake graphite
in a pearlitic matrix under typical cooling conditions.
  Physical Properties:

o Tensile Strength: For gray cast iron with this CE and a pearlitic matrix, tensile
strength is approximately 250–300 MPa (comparable to ASTM A48 Class 35–
40).
o Compressive Strength: Typically 3–4 times tensile strength, so 750–1000 MPa.
o Hardness: Brinell hardness of 200–250 HB, due to the pearlitic structure.
o Other Properties: Good wear resistance (graphite lubrication), high damping
capacity (vibration absorption), and good machinability.
 Assumptions:

a. Sand casting with moderate cooling rates, forming flake graphite in a pearlitic
matrix.
b. Slightly hypoeutectic composition based on CE.
c. Mn neutralizes S (Mn/S ≈ 45.5 > 1.7), preventing excessive carbide formation.
d. No special inoculation or alloying beyond the given charge.

iii) Suggest and Explain Reason Why Sulphur May Not Suffer a Net Loss Due to Oxidation
in a Typical Melt Operation
In a cupola furnace, sulfur could oxidize to SO₂ and be lost, but several factors prevent a net
loss:
 Reducing Atmosphere: Combustion of coke produces carbon monoxide (CO), creating a
reducing environment that inhibits sulfur oxidation.
 Manganese Reaction: Mn (0.74%) reacts with S (0.01625%) to form stable MnS
inclusions (Mn/S ≈ 45.5), retaining sulfur in the metal.
 Coke Contribution: Coke, used as fuel, contains sulfur that transfers to the melt,
potentially offsetting losses.
 Slag Interaction: The slag may retain sulfur or reintroduce it, depending on its chemistry
(e.g., basic slag forming sulfides).
Thus, sulfur content may remain stable or increase, as losses via oxidation are balanced by these
mechanisms.

Question 2
a) Identify and Describe Each of the Casting Processes Presented in Figure Q2a and Discuss
the Associated Advantages and Limitations of Each
The document references "Figure Q2a," which is not provided. However, based on common
foundry practices and the context ("nature of moulding aggregate"), I’ll assume typical casting
processes are depicted. Below are descriptions, advantages, and limitations for likely candidates:
1. Sand Casting:
 o Description: Molten metal is poured into a sand mold, which is broken after
solidification.
o Advantages: Low cost, versatile for complex shapes, suitable for large parts.
o Limitations: Rough surface finish, lower dimensional accuracy, slower
production.
2. Die Casting:

o Description: Molten metal is forced into a metal mold under high pressure.
o Advantages: High precision, smooth finish, rapid production for high volumes.
o Limitations: High initial mold cost, limited to smaller parts and certain alloys.
3. Investment Casting:

o Description: A wax pattern is coated with ceramic, melted out, and filled with
metal.
o Advantages: Excellent surface finish, high accuracy, ideal for intricate designs.
o Limitations: Expensive, time-consuming, size-limited.
4. Centrifugal Casting:

o Description: Metal is poured into a rotating mold, forming cylindrical parts.

o Advantages: Dense structure, high quality, good for symmetrical shapes (e.g.,
pipes).
o Limitations: Restricted to specific geometries, higher equipment cost.
Note: Without Figure Q2a, these are educated assumptions. The actual figure may depict
variations (e.g., shell molding, permanent mold casting).

b) From the Velocity Distribution in Figure Q2b, Suggest a Likely Cause for Turbulence
During Pouring and Possible Precautions to Minimize It
The document mentions "Figure: Mould filling" on PAGE3, suggesting Figure Q2b relates to
mold filling dynamics. Without the figure, I’ll address turbulence generally:
 Likely Cause: High pouring velocity causes turbulent flow, leading to
air entrapment and defects. This can result from excessive pouring
height, poor gating design, or sharp bends in the mold.

 Precautions:

a. Control Pouring Rate: Reduce height or use a pouring basin to lower metal
velocity.
b. Optimize Gating System: Employ a tapered sprue, runners, and multiple gates to
distribute flow smoothly.
c. Smooth Transitions: Avoid sharp corners in the mold design.
d. Adequate Venting: Ensure vents allow air to escape, preventing pressure build-
up.
 e. Use Filters: Place ceramic filters in the gating system to slow and streamline
flow.
These measures promote laminar flow, reducing defects like porosity or inclusions.

Conclusion
This response addresses all parts of Question 1 and Question 2 based on the provided data and
standard foundry knowledge. For Question 2, assumptions were made due to missing figures, but
the answers align with typical casting scenarios. Let me know if further clarification is needed!