Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 1249–1259

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Processing Technology

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

Review

The heat treatment of Al–Si–Cu–Mg casting alloys

Emma Sjölander ∗ , Salem Seifeddine
Materials and Manufacturing – Casting, Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, Jönköping University,
Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden

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

Article history: The mechanical properties of aluminium–silicon casting alloys containing Cu and Mg are known to be
Received 30 November 2009 improved by heat treatment. Over 60 papers are reviewed here in order to clarify the sequences of
Received in revised form 17 March 2010 microstructural changes which occur during heat treatment, and their influence on the mechanical prop-
Accepted 21 March 2010
erties. It is shown that the changes occurring during solution treatment are relatively well understood,
and that the equilibrium phase diagram can be used to predict the stability of phases at the solution
treatment temperature. The influence of quench rate and natural ageing on subsequent artificial ageing
Keywords:
needs to be studied further, but some conclusions can be drawn. These include: (1) An increase in quench
Cast aluminium alloys
Heat treatment
rate above 4 ◦ C/s gives a small increase in yield strength after ageing, while the concomitant influence
Mechanical properties on elongation is more complicated and depends on the alloy. (2) Natural ageing is shown to have a
large influence on subsequent artificial ageing response of Al–Si–Mg alloys, while there is a significant
lack of knowledge for Cu-containing alloys. Artificial ageing of Al–Si–Mg alloys in the temperature range
170–210 ◦ C gives peak yield strengths of the same level, while Cu-containing alloys show a decrease in
peak yield strength with increasing ageing temperature. The precipitation sequences in Al–Si–Mg and
Al–Si–Cu alloys are relatively well known. In Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys several precipitation sequences are
possible, which need further investigation.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1250
2. Solution treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1250
2.1. Dissolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1250
2.2. Homogenization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1250
2.3. Examples of dissolution and homogenization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1250
2.3.1. Al–Si–Mg alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1250
2.3.2. Al–Si–Cu alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1251
2.3.3. Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1251
2.4. Two-stage solution treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1252
2.5. Spheroidization of eutectic Si particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1252
3. Quenching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1253
3.1. Quench sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1253
4. Ageing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1254
4.1. Natural ageing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1254
4.2. Artificial ageing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1254
4.2.1. Precipitation sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1254
4.2.2. Hardening mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1254
4.2.3. Al–Si–Mg alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1254
4.2.4. Al–Si–Cu alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1255
4.2.5. Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1256

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: emma.sjolander@jth.hj.se (E. Sjölander).

0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2010.03.020
1250 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 1249–1259

4.3. Effect of natural ageing on mechanical properties obtained after artificial ageing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1257
4.3.1. Al–Si–Mg alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1257
4.3.2. Al–Si–Cu alloys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1257
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1258
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1258
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1258

1. Introduction rate to the solution treatment temperature. The former affects the
fraction, size, morphology and type of Cu-containing phases and
The mechanical properties of cast Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys depend the latter affects the time available for dissolution of Cu-containing
mainly on the alloy composition and the parameters of the cast- phases during heating.
ing process. In order to further improve the mechanical properties
of cast components these alloys can be heat treated. Various heat 2.1. Dissolution
treatment cycles, e.g. different combinations of temperatures and
times, are used depending on the casting process, the alloy com- Not all phases formed during solidification dissolve during
position and the desired mechanical properties. The Aluminum solution treatment. For example, ␤-Mg2 Si and ␪-Al2 Cu parti-
Association has standardized the definitions and nomenclature for cles are relatively easy to dissolve, while ␲-Al8 Mg3 FeSi6 and
heat treatment. A typical heat treatment applied to sand and grav- Q-Al5 Cu2 Mg8 Si6 particles are hard to dissolve, or transform in
ity die-cast Al–Si alloys is the T6 heat treatment, which involves the solid state (Moustafa et al., 2003). Phases containing Fe are
the following stages: hard to dissolve; and the ␣-Al15 (Fe,Mn)3 Si2 script phase is virtu-
ally unaffected by solution treatment, while the ␤-Al5 FeSi platelets
1. Solution treatment at a relatively high temperature to dissolve fragment and undergo gradual dissolution after a long time at a high
Cu- and Mg-rich particles formed during solidification to achieve temperature (Crowell and Shivkumar, 1995). To realise the full age-
a high and homogeneous concentration of the alloying elements ing potential of the alloy it is important that Mg- and Cu-containing
in solid solution. phases dissolve. Cu and Mg atoms that are bound to phases that do
2. Quenching, usually to room temperature, to obtain a supersatu- not dissolve during solution treatment are not available to increase
rated solid solution of solute atoms and vacancies. the strength by precipitation hardening.
3. Age hardening, to cause precipitation from the supersaturated
solid solution, either at room temperature (natural ageing) or at 2.2. Homogenization
an elevated temperature (artificial ageing).
When atoms detach from the coarse particles formed during
Basic principles of, and microstructural changes occurring dur- solidification they diffuse through the matrix to decrease the con-
ing these three stages, including examples for Al–Si–Mg, Al–Si–Cu centration gradient, forming a homogenous solid solution. The time
and Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys are given in the following chapters. needed to homogenize the casting is determined by the nature of
the diffusing atoms and the solution treatment temperature (diffu-
2. Solution treatment sion rate) as well as by the diffusing distance which is given by the
coarseness of the microstructure normally measured by secondary
Solution treatment is carried out at a high temperature, close to dendrite arm spacing (SDAS).
the eutectic temperature of the alloy. The purpose of the solution
heat treatment is to: 2.3. Examples of dissolution and homogenization

• dissolve soluble phases containing Cu and Mg formed during The time needed for dissolution and homogenization depends
solidification; on the composition, morphology, size and distribution of the phases
• homogenize the alloying elements; present after solidification, as well as on the solution treatment
• spheroidize the eutectic Si particles. temperature. The phases that can form during solidification for
different alloys are discussed below, as well as typical solution
The rate of these three processes increases as the solu- treatment times and temperatures.
tion treatment temperature increases. The strength that can be
obtained after ageing also increases as the temperature increases, 2.3.1. Al–Si–Mg alloys
because the maximum solubility of solute obtainable in the matrix 2.3.1.1. As-cast condition. Mg-containing phases that can form dur-
increases. The maximum solution treatment temperature that can ing solidification are Mg2 Si and the ␲-Fe phase. The concentrations
be used depends on the Cu and Mg concentrations of the alloy of Mg and Fe in the alloy and the solidification rate determine the
and is limited by incipient melting of phases formed from the last fractions of the ␤-Fe and ␲-Fe phases, as well as the concentra-
solidified melt that is rich in solute elements due to segregation. tion of Mg in solid solution. The ␲-Fe phase has a Chinese script or
Localized melting results in distortion and substantially reduced blocky morphology and is often formed on the ␤-Fe plates. Taylor et
mechanical properties. Cast Al–Si–Mg alloys can be solution treated al. (2000b) report that the Mg level has no significant influence on
at 540–550 ◦ C (Shivkumar et al., 1990b), while alloys containing Cu the volume fraction of the phases formed for an Al–Si–Mg alloy with
must be solution treated at a lower temperature due to the risk of 0.12 wt.% Fe and a SDAS of 40 ␮m. The ␲-Fe phase is the dominant
local melting of Cu-containing phases. According to Samuel (1998) phase, at about 1 vol.%, while the ␤-Fe phase is less than 0.1 vol.%.
Cu-containing phases start to melt at 519 ◦ C in an A319 alloy with The fraction of Mg2 Si phase increases with increasing Mg content
low-Mg concentration, while melting starts at 505 ◦ C in an A319 from close to zero for 0.3 wt.% Mg to 0.2 vol.% for 0.7 wt.% Mg.
alloy with 0.5 wt.% Mg, due to the presence of the Q-Al5 Mg8 Si6 Cu2
phase. The exact temperatures that can be used without localized 2.3.1.2. Solution-treated condition. Dissolution of the Mg2 Si phase
melting depend on the casting solidification rate and the heating is a fast process due to the high solution treatment temperature
 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 1249–1259 1251

Fig. 1. (a) Eutectic Al2 Cu and (b) blocky Al2 Cu. With kind permission from Springer Science + Business Media: Journal of Material Science, Effect of alloying elements on the
segregation and dissolution of CuAl2 phase in Al–Si–Cu 319 alloys (Li et al., 2003, Fig. 17).

which can be used and the high diffusion rate of Mg in Al. Rometsch A high solidification rate promotes the formation of the eutectic
et al. (1999) studied the solution treatment of an A356 alloy (SDAS Al2 Cu phase, while Sr modification increases the fraction of the
40 ␮m) and an A357 alloy (SDAS 55 ␮m) at a temperature of 540 ◦ C. blocky Al2 Cu phase (Samuel et al., 1996b).
Dissolution of the Mg2 Si phase in the A356 alloy was completed
after 2–4 min and homogenization was completed after 8–15 min.
2.3.2.2. Solution-treated condition. Samuel et al. (1996a), Li et al.
For the A357 alloy both dissolution and homogenization were com-
(2003) and Han et al. (2008) studied the dissolution of the blocky
plete within 50 min. According to these authors the longer time
Al2 Cu phase and the eutectic Al2 Cu phase during solution treat-
needed for the A357 alloy is due to the higher Mg concentration
ment. The eutectic Al2 Cu dissolves by fragmentation into smaller
and the coarser microstructure. Several other investigations report
segments that spheroidize and finally dissolve by radial diffusion of
similar results, for example Closset et al. (1986), Shivkumar et al.
Cu into the surrounding matrix, see Fig. 2. The blocky Al2 Cu phase
(1990b) and Zhang et al. (2002).
is harder to dissolve than the eutectic Al2 Cu phase, as the former
Dons et al. (2000), Taylor et al. (2000b), Rometsch et al. (2001)
does not fragment but dissolves by spheroidization and diffusion,
and Wang and Davidson (2001) have studied the transformation of
which takes a longer time. The concentration of Al and Cu in the
the ␲-Fe phase during solution treatment. They concluded that the
Al2 Cu particles is constant during the dissolution process and Cu
ability to transform the ␲-Fe phase into ␤-Fe phase and Mg in solid
diffuses from the outer layer of the Al2 Cu particles into the matrix.
solution depends on the Mg concentration of the alloy. If the Mg
Dissolution of Al2 Cu phases takes several hours, due to the low dif-
concentration is low (0.3–0.4 wt.%) the transformation is fast. On
fusion rate of Cu in Al and the low solution treatment temperature
the other hand, if the Mg concentration is high (0.6–0.7 wt.%) there
allowed. Samuel et al. (1996a) for example report that 8 h at 515 ◦ C
will be no transformation and the process may even be reversed. As
or 24 h at 505 ◦ C was needed to dissolve 75% of the Al2 Cu phase in
a result, an increase in Mg level above about 0.5 wt.% is not expected
a 319.2 alloy with SDAS of 22 ␮m.
to give an increase in strength when a T6 heat treatment with a
According to Dons (2001) the ␤-Fe phase transforms into the
solution treatment at 540 ◦ C is used.
Al7 FeCu2 phase during solution treatment when the alloy has a
high Cu concentration. This means that Cu in solid solution is lost
to the Al7 FeCu2 phase. An AlFeSiCu phase has also been reported by
2.3.2. Al–Si–Cu alloys
Cerri et al. (2000) to be present after solution treatment. This phase
2.3.2.1. As-cast condition. The solidification of the Al2 Cu phase has
has the shape of long thin needles and might be an intermediate
been extensively studied, by for example Samuel et al. (1996b),
step in the ␤-Fe to Al7 FeCu2 phase transition.
Djurdjevic et al. (1999) and Li et al. (2003). In the as-cast condi-
tion the Al2 Cu phase can be present in different shapes, as compact
block-like Al2 Cu phase, as eutectic Al2 Cu phase, or as a mixture of 2.3.3. Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys
both types, see Fig. 1. The Al2 Cu phase nucleates on ␤-Fe plates or 2.3.3.1. As-cast condition. The influence of Mg additions to a 319
on coarse eutectic Si particles during the last stage of solidification. alloy was studied by Samuel et al. (1997). The addition of Mg leads

Fig. 2. Dissolution process of (a) eutectic Al2 Cu and (b) blocky Al2 Cu particles (Han et al., 2008). Reprinted with permission of the American Foundry Society, Schaumburg,
IL, USA (www.afsinc.org).
1252 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 1249–1259
Fig. 3. Eutectic silicon in as-cast Al–11Si–0.6Mg alloy (a) unmodified and (b) Sr modified. With kind permission from Springer Science + Business Media: Metallurgical and
Materials Transaction A, The effect of solution heat treatment and quenching rates on mechanical properties and microstructures in AlSiMg foundry alloys (Pedersen and
Arnberg, 2001, Fig. 7).
to segregation of Cu away from the Si eutectic, resulting in the for-
mation of the blocky Al2 Cu phase and the Q-Al5 Mg8 Si6 Cu2 phase
growing from the blocky Al2 Cu phase during the last stage of solid-
ification. The coarseness of the Q phase increases with increasing
Mg level. The ␤-Fe phase starts to transform to the ␲-Fe phase as
0.35 wt.% Mg is added and the size and volume fraction of the ␲-Fe
phase increases with increasing Mg. Mg2 Si precipitates as small
dots on the Si particles for Mg levels below 0.5 wt.% and in the
form of Chinese script for Mg levels above 1 wt.%. Alloys with a
low Cu level of 0.5 wt.% behave as an Al–Si–Mg alloy and the Mg2 Si
phase and the ␲-Fe phase are formed with traces of the Q and
Al2 Cu phase (Dons, 2001). If the Cu and Mg levels are increased to
1.4 wt.% the Mg2 Si and ␲-Fe phase are still the main phases formed,
although the amount of Al2 Cu phase and Q phases increase (Lasa
and Rodriguez-Ibabe, 2004).
2.3.3.2. Solution treatment condition. The alloy composition and
the solution treatment temperature determine which phases will
dissolve during solution treatment. The Q phase can for example
be stable, grow or dissolve during solution treatment depending
on the alloy composition and solution treatment temperature. Lasa
and Rodriguez-Ibabe (2002) and Han et al. (2008) measured the
area fraction of the Q phase in the as-cast and solution-treated
condition of alloys with high Cu (3.5–4.4 wt.%) and various Mg con-
centrations. The area fraction of Q phase did not change during
solution treatment, indicating that the phase is stable or dissolves
very slowly. Lasa and Rodriguez-Ibabe (2004) on the other hand
report an increase in Q phase during solution treatment by substi-
tution of the dissolving Mg2 Si phase by the Q phase in an alloy with
low Cu (1.4 wt.%) and high Mg (1.3 wt.%) concentrations. In these
examples solution treatment temperatures of about 490 ◦ C were
used. Lasa and Rodriguez-Ibabe (2004) and Chaudhury and Apelian
(2006) report that the Q phase starts to dissolve when the tem-
perature is increased to 530 ◦ C. Lasa and Rodriguez-Ibabe (2004)
conclude that dissolution and formation of phases during solution
treatment is well predicted by the equilibrium phase diagram.
The time needed for dissolution and homogenization is reported
to be shorter for Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys than for corresponding Mg-
free alloys. According to Han et al. (2008), 8 h at 490 ◦ C is needed
to obtain a high and uniform Cu concentration in the matrix of an
Al–7Si–3.5Cu alloy with SDAS 40–50 ␮m, while only 4 h is needed
if Mg is added to the alloy.
2.4. Two-stage solution treatment
Alloys containing Cu, or both Cu and Mg cannot be solution
treated at as high temperature as alloys containing only Mg due
to the risk of melting the Cu-containing phases. A lower temper-
ature will not give an optimal solution treatment because there
will be a lower concentration of alloying elements and vacancies in
solid solution and there will be less spheroidization of Si particles.
Samuel (1998) for example reports that an addition of Mg to an
Al–Si–Cu alloy did not provide an increase in strength at a solution
treatment temperature of 480 ◦ C, but when the temperature was
increased to 500 ◦ C an increase in strength was achieved.
Sokolowski et al. (1995) investigated the possibility to use a
two-stage solution treatment. The alloy is first solution treated at a
low temperature, 495 ◦ C for 8 h, to dissolve Cu-containing particles,
and then the temperature is increased to 520 ◦ C for 2 h to obtain a
homogenous concentration of alloying elements. This procedure
resulted in an increase in both strength and ductility. If too high a
temperature is used localized melting occurs and the mechanical
properties decrease drastically.
2.5. Spheroidization of eutectic Si particles
The third aim of a solution treatment is to spheroidize eutectic
silicon particles. Apelian et al. (1989) have summarised much of the
work done on the influence of the solution treatment on the mor-
phology of the eutectic Si particles up to 1989. The morphology of
the eutectic Si has a great impact on the mechanical properties of
the alloy. Si is present as large brittle flakes in unmodified alloys,
see Fig. 3a, which act as crack initiators and have a negative effect
on the alloy ductility. The eutectic Si morphology can be altered,
either by exposing the casting to a high temperature for long peri-
ods, or by chemical modification by addition of for example Sr to
the melt, or by a combination of both treatments. During solution
treatment the eutectic Si particles first fragment and spheroidize
and then coarsen. When Sr is added the morphology of the eutectic
Si changes to fibrous, see Fig. 3b. The fibrous morphology is much
easier to fragment and spheroidize during solution treatment and
the solution treatment time can be shortened.
The time needed for spheroidization depends strongly on the
solution treatment temperature and on the morphology and size
of the eutectic Si particles in the as-cast condition. The times pre-
sented below give mechanical properties that are close to the
maximum values achieved after long solution treatment times
and are not only based on visual inspection of the Si particles.
Shivkumar et al. (1990b) report that 3–6 h at 540 ◦ C is the optimal
time for a Sr-modified sand-cast A356 alloy. The time can be short-
ened further when the microstructure is finer. According to Zhang
et al. (2002) 30 min at 540 ◦ C is needed for a low-pressure die-cast
Sr-modified Al–7Si–0.3Mg alloy with SDAS of 25 ␮m. Ogris et al.
(2002) report that the time can be decreased to 3 min at 540 ◦ C for a
thixocast Sr-modified A356 alloy. When the solution temperature
is lower, as for Al–Si–Cu alloys longer times are needed. Crowell
and Shivkumar (1995) report that 8–16 h at 495 ◦ C are needed for
a Sr-modified 319.1 alloy.
 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 1249–1259
Fig. 4. (a) Yield strength and (b) elongation to fracture for T6 heat treated Al–Si alloys subjected to different quench rates. (A) Emadi et al. (2003), (B) Seifeddine et al. (2007),
(C) Zhang and Zheng (1996), (D) Rometsch and Schaffer (2000) and (E) Pedersen and Arnberg (2001).
3. Quenching
The objective of quenching is to suppress precipitation upon
cooling of the casting from the high solution treatment temperature
to room temperature. If the quench rate is sufficiently high solute
is retained in solid solution and a high number of vacancies are also
retained. On the other hand if the cooling is too slow, particles pre-
cipitate heterogeneously at grain boundaries or dislocations, which
results in a reduction in supersaturation of solute and concomi-
tantly a lower maximum yield strength after ageing. The drawback
with quick cooling is that thermal stresses are induced in the cast-
ing. Water is often used as quenching medium. When a slower
quench rate is needed other quenching media such as oil, salt baths
and organic solutions can be used.
Precipitation kinetics depend on the degree of supersaturation
and on the diffusion rate, which vary with temperature in opposite
ways. At a high temperature the diffusion rate is high and the super-
saturation is low, while at a low temperature the diffusion rate
is low and the supersaturation is high. The maximum nucleation
and growth rates occur over a critical temperature range which is
between 450 and 200 ◦ C for most Al-alloys. The time spent in this
temperature region during quenching should therefore be as short
as possible to avoid precipitation.
3.1. Quench sensitivity
The quench sensitivity is higher for cast alloys than for wrought
alloys. According to Tiryakioglu and Shuey (2007) the higher
quench sensitivity of the former is due to the presence of eutec-
tic Si particles in cast alloys, which influence the quench sensitivity
in several ways. Firstly, the amount of excess (solid solution) Si in
the matrix is reduced with reduced quench rates due to diffusion
of Si atoms to eutectic Si particles. Secondly, the ␤-Mg2 Si phase
nucleates on the eutectic Si particles, reducing the concentration
of Mg in solid solution. Finally, the presence of eutectic Si particles
gives a high dislocation density due to the difference in thermal
expansion between Si and Al, which provides nucleation sites for
precipitates.
The influence of quench rate on yield strength and elongation
are summarised in Fig. 4. All samples were aged 6–8 h at 170 ◦ C after
quenching, except the samples of Pedersen and Arnberg (2001)
which were aged 4 h at 150 ◦ C. The slope of the curves in Fig. 4a
is a measure of the quench sensitivity of the alloy. At low quench
rates (below 1 ◦ C/s), the yield strength increases linearly with the
logarithm of the quench rate and does not seem to depend on the
composition of the alloy. At quench rates between 1 and 4 ◦ C/s
the quench sensitivity is alloy dependent, and quench sensitiv-
ity increases with increasing Mg concentration. At higher quench
rates (above 4 ◦ C/s), the quench sensitivity is independent of the
1253
Mg concentration and much lower, about one-fourth of the quench
sensitivity for quench rates below 1 ◦ C/s. The decrease in strength
with decreasing quench rate is according to Zhang and Zheng
(1996) due to loss of excess Si as the amount of excess Si deter-
mines the composition of the ␤ phase that forms during ageing.
Less excess Si after quenching thereby results in a lower volume
fraction of ␤ precipitates, giving a lower strength.
Few investigations have been reported on Cu-containing alloys.
The quench sensitivity for 319 alloys seems to be of the same order
as for Al–Si–Mg alloys, according to data reported by Garcia-Celis et
al. (1998). Newkirk et al. (2002) report a higher quench sensitivity of
an Al–6Si–3.5Cu–0.3Mg alloy compared to an Al–7Si–0.35Mg alloy.
Fig. 4b shows the influence of the quench rate on the elongation
to fracture. Two different behaviours can be observed. For alloys
with high Mg concentration (0.6 wt.%) the elongation increases
when the quench rate decreases. For alloys with low-Mg concentra-
tion (0.2–0.4 wt.%) the behaviour is more complex. The elongation
decreases with decreasing quench rate until it reaches a minimum
at 4–40 ◦ C/s and then increases on further decrease in quench rate.
Pedersen and Arnberg (2001) suggest that the ductility is related
to the amount of excess Si in the matrix after quenching. The
increase in ductility for alloys with higher Mg concentrations is
due to the formation of a lower fraction of coherent ␤ during
ageing after a slow quench. Lower fractions of coherent ␤ have
also been observed in low-Mg alloys, but brittle Si precipitates
are also formed after a slow quench, due to the higher amount of
excess Si, resulting in a reduction in ductility. Zhang and Zheng
(1996) observed a decrease in ductility when quenching at 0.5 ◦ C/s
compared to 110 ◦ C/s and have a slightly different explanation. Si
precipitates were formed in the ␣-Al matrix after ageing when a
quench rate of 110 ◦ C/s was used. At the extremely slow quench
rate, 0.5 ◦ C/s, coarse ␤ rods surrounded with precipitate-free zones
were formed, while no Si particles were observed in the ␣-Al
matrix. The coarse ␤ rods are brittle and were thought to be the
reason for the reduced ductility of the slow quench.
Zhang and Zheng (1996) and Jeyakumar et al. (2009) report that
the quench rate has a strong influence on the ageing curve, with a
much reduced increase in hardness for air quenched samples than
for water quenched ones. Zhang and Zheng (1996) report that the
time to peak hardness increases for extremely slow quench rates
(0.5 ◦ C/s), while for faster quench rates, above 20 ◦ C/s, no shift is
seen in the time to the peak. Jeyakumar et al. (2009) studied the
influence of natural ageing prior to artificial ageing, on the quench
sensitivity. The difference between the ageing curves for the two
quench rates decreased when natural ageing was used, i.e. the
quench sensitivity is lower when natural ageing is applied prior
to artificial ageing. Quench sensitivity is also affected by the ageing
condition, as reported by Zhang and Zheng (1996) and Newkirk et
al. (2002).
1254 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 1249–1259
Fig. 5. Natural ageing curves for (a) SSM HPDC A356 alloy (Möller et al., 2007) and (b) an Al–9Si–3.5Cu and an Al–9Si–3.5Cu–0.5Mg alloy (Reif et al., 1997b).
4. Ageing
Ageing takes place at room temperature (natural ageing) or at an
elevated temperature in the range of 150–210 ◦ C (artificial ageing).
The objective of ageing is to obtain a uniform distribution of small
precipitates, which gives a high strength.
4.1. Natural ageing
The high level of supersaturation and the high vacancy concen-
tration after quenching cause rapid formation of Guinier-Preston
(GP) zones, which are clusters that contain a high fraction of solute
atoms. These clusters are very small and finely dispersed in the
matrix, because diffusion is limited at room temperature. The clus-
ters are coherent with the matrix, but elastic stresses are induced
around the clusters due to the difference in size between the solute
and the solvent atoms. Coherent precipitates are formed because
they have a small interface energy which gives a smaller critical
radius that makes them precipitate relatively easy. The GP zones
and the stress field around them hinder dislocation motion, result-
ing in an increase in strength.
Alloys containing Mg harden rapidly at room temperature, see
Fig. 5a. An increase in hardness is seen after about 1 h and a hard-
ness plateau is reached after about 100 h, after which no further
increase in hardness occurs (Shivkumar et al., 1990a; Möller et al.,
2007). The hardness that can be reached depends on the compo-
sition of the alloy; a higher Mg concentration (<0.7 wt.%) gives a
higher hardness. Al–Si–Cu alloys harden slowly at room temper-
ature. If a small concentration of Mg is added the alloy responds
quicker to natural ageing (Reif et al., 1997b), see Fig. 5b.
4.2. Artificial ageing
Artificial ageing involves precipitation at an elevated temper-
ature, normally in the range 150–210 ◦ C. At these temperatures
atoms can move over larger distances and the precipitates formed
during artificial ageing are normally much larger in size than GP
zones.
4.2.1. Precipitation sequence
The precipitation sequence starts with the formation of GP
zones. Next to form are metastable precipitates that are either
coherent or semi-coherent with the matrix. The metastable precip-
itates may nucleate on the GP zones if they have reached a critical
size, or homogeneously in the matrix, or heterogeneously on dislo-
cations or other lattice defects. The metastable precipitates grow on
further ageing by diffusion of atoms from the supersaturated solid
solution to the precipitates. As the supersaturation decreases, the
precipitates continue to grow in accordance with Ostwald ripening.
The process is driven by a reduction in surface energy, so that the
larger precipitates coarsen as the smaller ones dissolve. As the pre-
cipitates grow the coherency strain increases until interfacial bond
strength is exceeded and the precipitates become non-coherent.
Last to form in the precipitation sequence is the non-coherent equi-
librium phase. The precipitation procedure does not necessarily
follow the above sequence, it can also start at an intermediate stage,
depending on the thermal history of the material (natural ageing,
artificial ageing temperature, heating rate, etc.).
4.2.2. Hardening mechanisms
The strength of an alloy derives from the ability of precipitates
to stop mobile dislocations. The strength is determined by the size
and distribution of the precipitates and by the coherency of the pre-
cipitates with the matrix. The interaction with the dislocations can
be described by the Friedel effect and by the Orowan mechanism.
Small and not too hard precipitates are normally sheared by moving
dislocations (Friedel effect), see Fig. 6a. When the precipitates are
larger and harder the moving dislocations bypass the precipitates
by bowing (Orowan mechanism), see Fig. 6b. The strength of the
precipitates increases with their size as long as they are sheared by
dislocations. Further increase of precipitate size makes the shearing
processes rather difficult; thus, it is more favourable for the dislo-
cations to pass the precipitates via the Orowan mechanism, leading
to a decrease in strength with further increase in precipitate size,
see Fig. 6c. The highest strength is obtained when there is an equal
probability for the dislocations to pass the precipitates by shearing
and by bowing.
4.2.3. Al–Si–Mg alloys
The precipitation sequence for Al–Si–Mg alloys starts with the
formation of spherical GP zones consisting of an enrichment of Mg
and Si atoms. The zones elongate and develop into a needle shaped
coherent ␤ phase. The needles grow to become semi-coherent
rods (␤ phase) and finally non-coherent platelets (stable ␤ phase)
(Shivkumar et al., 1990a). Zhang and StJohn (1995) observed a large
number of fine ␤ phases which had a diameter of 2–5 nm and
a length of 10–20 nm in the peak-aged condition. The length of
the needles increased as ageing proceeded. The composition of the
metastable precipitates was earlier thought to be close to that of the
equilibrium precipitates, but investigations using atom probe field
ion microscopy revealed that the composition may vary. Edwards et
al. (1998) for example report that the ␤ precipitate may have Mg:Si
ratios of 1.2 rather than the equilibrium ratio 2. Maruyama et al.
(1997) report that the Mg:Si ratio increases through the sequence
GP zones, ␤ , ␤ , ␤ and that the composition of the phases may be
affected by the excess Si concentration after quenching.
Si is reported by for example Kaczorowski et al. (1979) and
Zhang and StJohn (1995) to precipitate in the ␣-Al matrix after
 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 1249–1259
Fig. 6. Dislocations pass precipitates either by (a) shearing or (b) bypassing (Gerold, 1979). (c) Relationship between precipitate radius and strength of the particles to resist
shearing or bypassing by dislocations (Polmear, 2006).
slight overageing if Si is present in excess after quenching. The
diameter of the Si precipitates formed is about 40 nm (Zhang and
StJohn, 1995). A high concentration of excess Si after quenching is
thought to give a ␤ phase with a low Mg:Si ratio (Zhang, 1996). A
high fraction of the available Si is then consumed by formation of
the ␤ phase and a low concentration of Si remains in solid solu-
tion in the matrix. This concentration is too low for Si precipitates to
form on initial ageing. The composition of the metastable ␤ precip-
itates changes as ageing proceeds and Si is released into the matrix
and Si precipitates are formed later (Eskin, 2003).
The peak yield strength increases as the Mg concentration in the
alloy is increased (Taylor et al., 2000a), see Fig. 7. The increase in
yield strength is linear up to a Mg concentration of around 0.5 wt.%,
while the increase is greatly reduced for higher Mg concentra-
tions. The ␲-Fe phase is stable at higher Mg concentrations, as
earlier discussed, and cannot be completely dissolved during solu-
tion treatment (Taylor et al., 2000b; Dons, 2001). This means that
some of the Mg will be bound to the ␲-Fe phase and cannot be used
for precipitation hardening, with a lower strength as result.
When artificial ageing temperatures in the range 170–210 ◦ C are
used for Al–Si–Mg alloys, comparable strength levels are achieved
(Rometsch and Schaffer, 2002; Alexopoulos and Pantelakis, 2004),
see Fig. 8. If a high temperature is used the time for ageing can be
Fig. 7. Yield strength versus nominal Mg content for a peak-aged Al–7Si–Mg alloy
(Taylor et al., 2000a).
1255
shortened. The time to peak hardness is about 10 h at 170 ◦ C, while
it is only 20 min at 210 ◦ C. If temperature is increased above 210 ◦ C
a decrease in strength is seen, see Fig. 8a. According to Eskin (2003)
the ␤ phase is substituted by the ␤ phase at temperatures above
200 ◦ C, which gives a lower contribution to strength. The decrease
in peak strength for temperatures above 210 ◦ C could thereby be
due to a change in hardening precipitates.
4.2.4. Al–Si–Cu alloys
GP zones consisting of localized concentrations of Cu atoms,
having diameters of 3–5 nm, form at room temperature. When
the temperature is increased above 100 ◦ C these GP zones dis-
solve (Hatch, 1984). In their place ␪ phases (sometimes referred
to as GP2) are formed. A reduction in strength is seen as the GP
zones dissolve before the ␪ phase has had time to form. After pro-
longed ageing the ␪ phase transforms into the metastable ␪ , which
is partially coherent with the matrix. Finally the stable incoher-
ent equilibrium phase ␪ (Al2 Cu) is formed. Maximum strength is
obtained when the highest fraction of ␪ phase is present (Hatch,
1984).
A high concentration of dislocations is formed in Al–Si–Cu alloys
during quenching from the solution treatment temperature, due to
the differences in thermal expansion of the ␣-Al matrix and the Si
particles. GP zones form on the dislocations because less activa-
tion energy is needed to form heterogeneously. The GP zones that
form on the dislocations immediately dissolve and change into the
␪ phase (Kang et al., 1999), see Fig. 9a. Cu that should have been
precipitated in fine and uniformly distributed precipitates during
ageing is lost to coarse ␪ phases nucleated on dislocations, result-
ing in lower strength. Reif et al. (1997a) and Wang et al. (2004) only
observed the ␪ phase precipitated on dislocations in the peak-aged
condition, while Kang et al. (1999) observed both ␪ and ␪ pre-
cipitates in the underaged condition. Plate-like ␪ particles with a
length of 100 nm were present on dislocations and fine, uniformly
distributed ␪ precipitates were present in the matrix in regions
without dislocations, see Fig. 9a.
The time to obtain peak hardness is longer for Al–Si–Cu alloys
than for Al–Si–Mg and Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys. Kang et al. (1999) report
a time to peak hardness of about 120 h at 160 ◦ C and 15 h at 200 ◦ C.
There is a scatter in times to peak hardness reported in the liter-
ature, from 30 h up to 120 h or more at 160 ◦ C (Reif et al., 1997a;
Kang et al., 1999; Ouellet and Samuel, 1999; Wang et al., 2004). One
reason for the scatter is that Mg, even at low concentrations, has a
1256 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 1249–1259

Fig. 8. Artificial ageing curves for two A357 alloys; (a) Rometsch and Schaffer (2002) and (b) Alexopoulos and Pantelakis (2004).

large influence on the age hardening response. The peak hardness were performed by Li et al. (2006) and Wang et al. (2007), but the
decreases when the ageing temperature is increased, see Fig. 9b, results reported are different. Both added Cu in different concen-
i.e. Al–Si–Cu alloys are more sensitive to ageing temperature than trations (0–4 wt.%) to Al–Si–Mg alloys with around 0.5 wt.% Mg. The
Al–Si–Mg alloys. samples were heat treated to the T6 condition and hardness was
measured. The ageing curves are shown in Fig. 10. According to Li
et al. (2006) the time to peak hardness is the same for Al–Si–Mg
4.2.5. Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys
and Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys, indicating that the same kinds of pre-
The strength obtained for Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys after heat treat-
cipitates are present in both alloys. However, according to Wang
ment is much higher than for the ternary alloys. Ouellet and Samuel
et al. (2007) the time to peak hardness is longer for Al–Si–Cu–Mg
(1999) report that when Mg is added to an Al–Si–Cu alloy the yield
alloys than for Al–Si–Mg alloys, indicating a change in the precipi-
strength increases from 337 to 415 MPa for peak ageing at 150 ◦ C,
tation sequence as Cu is added. This was confirmed by transmission
but the elongations decrease to less than 1%. The ability to age
electron microscopy (TEM) studies on peak-aged material. Li et
harden, that can be measured as the difference in hardness in the as
al. (2006) report that the number density of the ␤ precipitates
quenched condition and in the peak-aged condition, also increases
increased when Cu was added and that plate shaped ␪ phases were
from 170 to 202 MPa as 0.4 wt.% Mg was added. As for Al–Si–Cu
formed in the alloy with 3 wt.% Cu. A few lath-shaped precipitates
alloys the peak strength is reduced for Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys when
that are precursors to the Q phase were also observed in the alloys
the ageing temperature is increased (Ouellet and Samuel, 1999;
containing Cu. The fraction of the lath-shaped phase increased with
Geier et al., 2006).
ageing time. Wang et al. (2007) on the other hand report that the
Many different precipitates in different combinations have been
hardening precipitate was dot shaped Q phases in the alloy with
observed in the peak-aged condition of Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys. The
1 wt.% Cu and that ␪ precipitates were formed in addition to the
kind of precipitates that form depends on the alloy composition, the
Q phase for the alloy with 3 wt.% Cu. Wang et al. (2007) found that
thermal history of the alloy and the artificial ageing applied. Exam-
the ability to age harden diminished as 1 wt.% Cu was added to the
ples of precipitates that can be present in the peak-aged condition
Al–Si–Mg alloy due to the formation of the Q phase that has a lower
are: ␤ (Mg2 Si), ␪ (Al2 Cu) and Q (Al5 Mg8 Si6 Cu2 ). It is apparent that
hardenability than the ␤ phase. From these two investigations it is
there are two possible combinations of precipitates. Precipitation
clear that both ␤ and Q phases can form during artificial ageing.
of ␤ and ␪ , or alternatively Q and ␪ , where the ␪ phase forms
The time to peak hardness is shorter and the age-hardenability is
if the Cu concentration is high enough. Two similar investigations

Fig. 9. (a) Precipitation distribution in the matrix for Al–Si–Cu alloys (Kang et al., 1999). (b) Artificial ageing curves for an Al–7Si–3Cu alloy (Kang et al., 1999). Reprinted
with permission of the American Foundry Society, Schaumburg, IL, USA (www.afsinc.org).
 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 1249–1259
Fig. 10. Artificial ageing curves for (a) Al–7Si–0.45Mg–xCu at 175 ◦ C (Li et al., 2006) and (b) Al–8Si–0.4Mg–xCu at 160 ◦ C (Wang et al., 2007).
higher for the ␤ phase. Both investigations agree that the ␪ phase
is formed when the Cu concentration is higher than 1 wt.%.
Mishra et al. (2001) performed a study on an Al–339 alloy that
shows the importance of the thermal history of the alloy on the pre-
cipitates formed during artificial ageing. The S phase was observed
in the T5 condition, whereas the ␤ phase formed in the T6 con-
dition. Similar investigations have been done for wrought alloys,
and show that natural ageing and artificial ageing have a impor-
tant influence on the phases formed. The fraction of the Q phase
formed relative to the ␤ phase is reported to increase with natural
ageing, ageing time and ageing temperature (Eskin, 2003; Wang et
al., 2003, 2006).
4.3. Effect of natural ageing on mechanical properties obtained
after artificial ageing
Clusters of atoms formed during natural ageing can either
redissolve or continue to grow upon subsequent artificial ageing,
depending on their size. If the clusters are larger than a critical
radius, that depends on the supersaturation, they will be stable
and can act as nucleation points for precipitates (Shivkumar et al.,
1990a). The critical radius is larger at a higher temperature as a
consequence of the lower supersaturation. If the clusters have not
attained the critical size they will be unstable and redissolve. The
solute concentration in the matrix increases and the critical radius
decreases, which will make some of the clusters stable (Jacobs,
1999). The larger clusters start to grow and the smaller ones con-
tinue to dissolve. A microstructure with a lower number density
of coarser particles is formed compared to the microstructure of
directly aged material (Shivkumar et al., 1990a). The detrimental
effect of natural ageing can be nullified by a short high temper-
ature treatment prior to artificial ageing (Murali et al., 1997) or
Fig. 11. Artificial ageing curves at 180 ◦ C for an A356 alloy with (a) 0 h of natural ageing and (b) 20 h of natural ageing (Möller et al., 2007).
1257
a short ageing directly after quenching (Pashley et al., 1966). The
natural ageing response can also be decreased by addition of trace
elements (Cd, In, Sn and Cu) to an Al–Si–Mg alloy through binding
of vacancies to the trace elements (Ghate et al., 1984).
4.3.1. Al–Si–Mg alloys
Several investigations have been made on the effect of natural
ageing of Al–Si–Mg alloys on mechanical properties after artificial
ageing (Ghate et al., 1984; Shivkumar et al., 1990a; Murali et al.,
1997; Emadi et al., 2003; Hernández-Paz et al., 2004; Möller et al.,
2007). Möller et al. (2007) report that the peak hardness is shifted to
longer ageing times when natural ageing is used compared to direct
ageing after quenching, but the peak strength is not changed, see
Fig. 11. The delayed increase in hardness of the natural aged sam-
ples is thought to be due to dissolution of clusters formed during
natural ageing.
4.3.2. Al–Si–Cu alloys
Few experiments were found in the literature concerning
the influence of natural ageing on the artificial ageing response
of Al–Si–Cu and Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys. A positive response was
reported by Geier et al. (2006) for a high pressure die-cast (HPDC)
Al–9Si–3Cu–0.3Mg–0.5Zn–0.9Fe alloy in the T5 condition. The time
to peak strength decreased and the peak strength increased with
natural ageing time, see Fig. 12. These positive effects were seen for
all artificial ageing temperatures investigated, from 140 to 240 ◦ C.
The positive response to natural ageing was attributed to the for-
mation of both coherent and incoherent precipitates. It should be
noted that the alloy contains Zn, which may affect the artificial age-
ing response. Reif et al. (1997b) report a slight increase in peak
hardness of an Al–9Si–3.5Cu and an Al–9Si9–3.5Cu–0.5Mg alloy
upon natural ageing. The small effect of natural ageing on the arti-
1258 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 1249–1259
Fig. 12. Increase in yield strength by combining natural ageing and artificial ageing
at 200 ◦ C for a HPDC Al–9Si–3Cu–0.3Mg–0.5Zn–0.9Fe alloy (Geier et al., 2006).
ficial ageing response may be due to the short natural ageing time
of 4 h.
5. Conclusions
The solution treatment process is relatively well known and
the equilibrium phase diagram can be used to predict the stabil-
ity of phases at the solution treatment temperature. When Sr is
used to modify the eutectic Si, it allows the use of shorter solution
treatment times, as the spheroidization process is very rapid.
The quench sensitivity of cast Al–Si alloys is high due to diffu-
sion of Si atoms from the matrix to the eutectic Si particles. The
strength after ageing increases with increasing quench rate, but
only a small increase in strength is obtained when the quench rate
exceeds about 4 ◦ C/s. The relationship between the elongation after
ageing and the quench rate is more complicated and depends on
the alloy composition. Few investigations show the influence of the
quench rate on the artificial ageing curve and there is a lack of data
for Cu-containing alloys.
Natural ageing is shown to have a large influence on the arti-
ficial ageing response of Al–Si–Mg alloys, although the peak yield
strength and the time to peak is not affected. For Cu-containing
alloys the influence is not known.
Artificial ageing of Al–Si–Mg alloys anywhere in the tempera-
ture range 170–210 ◦ C gives the same peak yield strength, while
Cu-containing alloys show a decrease in peak yield strength with
increasing ageing temperature. Several precipitation sequences are
possible in Al–Si–Cu–Mg alloys and it is unknown which parame-
ters determine the actual sequence which takes place.
This review shows that it is of vital importance to take the
whole heat treatment process into consideration in order to achieve
the optimal mechanical properties of an alloy. It is not sufficient
to consider only the solution treatment and the artificial ageing
parameters.
Acknowledgement
The European Project NADIA (New Automotive components
Designed for and manufactured by Intelligent processing of light
Alloys) is gratefully acknowledged for financial support.
References
Alexopoulos, N.D., Pantelakis, S.G., 2004. Quality evaluation of A357 cast aluminum
alloy specimens subjected to different artificial aging treatment. Mater. Design
25, 419–430.
Apelian, D., Shivkumar, S., Sigworth, G., 1989. Fundamental aspects of heat treatment
of cast Al–Si–Mg alloys. AFS Trans. 137, 727–742.
Cerri, E., Evangelista, E., Spigarelli, S., Cavaliere, P., DeRiccardis, F., 2000. Effects of
thermal treatments on microstructure and mechanical properties in a thixocast
319 aluminum alloy. Mater. Sci. Eng. A: Struct. 284, 254–260.
Chaudhury, S.K., Apelian, D., 2006. Fluidized bed heat treatment of cast Al–Si–Cu–Mg
alloys. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 37, 2295–2311.
Closset, B., Drew, R.A.L., Gruzleski, J.E., 1986. Eutectic silicon shape control by in situ
measurement of resistivity. AFS Trans. 94, 9–16.
Crowell, N., Shivkumar, S., 1995. Solution treatment effects in cast Al–Si–Cu alloys.
AFS Trans. 107, 721–726.
Djurdjevic, M., Stockwell, T., Sokolowski, J., 1999. The effect of strontium on the
microstructure of the aluminium–silicon and aluminium–copper eutectics in
the 319 aluminium alloy. Int. J. Cast Metal. Res. 12, 67–73.
Dons, A.L., 2001. The Alstruc homogenization model for industrial aluminum alloys.
J. Light Met. 1, 133–149.
Dons, A.L., Pedersen, L., Brusethaug, S., 2000. Modelling the microstructure of heat
treated AlSi foundry alloys. Aluminium 76, 294–297.
Edwards, G.A., Stiller, K., Dunlop, G.L., Couper, M.J., 1998. The precipitation sequence
in Al–Mg–Si alloys. Acta Mater. 46, 3893–3904.
Emadi, D., Whiting, L.V., Sahoo, M., Sokolowski, J.H., Burke, P., Hart, M., 2003. Optimal
heat treatment of A356.2 alloy. In: Crepeau, P.N. (Ed.), Light Metals 2003. TMS,
San Diego, CA, United States, pp. 983–989.
Eskin, D.G., 2003. Decomposition of supersaturated solid solutions in Al–Cu–Mg–Si
alloys. J. Mater. Sci. 38, 279–290.
Garcia-Celis, A.I., Velasco, E., Valtierra, S., Mojica, J.F., Colas, R., 1998. Cooling effects
on aging in a cast aluminum alloy. In: Das, S.K. (Ed.), TMS Annual Meeting. San
Antonio, TX, USA. TMS, pp. 135–143.
Geier, G., Rockenschaub, H., Pabel, T., Hopfinger, M., 2006. Variation of the pre-
cipitation mechanisms for high pressure die casting alloy AlSi9Cu3(Fe)—a
new method of heat treatment for superior mechanical properties.
Giessereiforschung 58, 32–48.
Gerold, V., 1979. Precipitation hardening. In: Nabarro, F.R.N. (Ed.), Dislocations in
Solids. North-Holland, p. 222.
Ghate, G.P., Sreenivasa Murthy, K.S., Raman, K.S., 1984. Effect of trace elements of
the delayed artificial aging of Al–7% Si–0.3% Mg alloy. Aluminium 60, 19–20.
Han, Y.M., Samuel, A.M., Samuel, F.H., Valtierra, S., Doty, H.W., 2008. Effect of solution
heat treatment type on the dissolution of copper phases in Al–Si–Cu–Mg type
alloys. AFS Trans. 116, 79–90.
Hatch, J.E., 1984. Aluminum: Properties and Physical Metallurgy. ASM, Metals Park,
OH, pp. 136–143.
Hernández-Paz, J.F., Paray, F., Gruzleski, J.E., Emadi, D., 2004. Natural aging and heat
treatment of A356 aluminum alloy. AFS Trans. 112, 155–164.
Jacobs, M.H., 1999. TALAT Lecture 1204, Precipitation Hardening
[Online]. EAA, The University of Birmingham, UK, Available:
http://www.eaa.net/eaa/education/TALAT/1000/1200.htm.
Jeyakumar, M., Hamed, M., Shankar, S., 2009. Heat treatment of A356.2 aluminum
alloy: effect of quench rate and natural ageing. In: Campbell, J., Crepeau, P.N.,
Tiryakioglu, M. (Eds.), Shape Casting: 3rd International Symposium. San Fran-
cisco, CA. TMS, pp. 87–95.
Kaczorowski, M., Grabski, M.W., Sawicki, J., Murza-Mucha, P., 1979. A study of
precipitation hardening of commercial Al–9 wt% Si alloy. J. Mater. Sci. 14,
2781–2786.
Kang, H.G., Kida, M., Miyahara, H., Ogi, K., 1999. Age-hardening characteristics of
Al–Si–Cu-base cast alloys. AFS Trans. 27, 507–515.
Lasa, L., Rodriguez-Ibabe, J.M., 2002. Characterization of the dissolution of the Al2 Cu
phase in two Al–Si–Cu–Mg casting alloys using calorimetry. Mater. Charact. 48,
371–378.
Lasa, L., Rodriguez-Ibabe, J.M., 2004. Evolution of the main intermetallic phases
in Al–Si–Cu–Mg casting alloys during solution treatment. J. Mater. Sci. 39,
1343–1355.
Li, Y.J., Brusethaug, S., Olsen, A., 2006. Influence of Cu on the mechanical properties
and precipitation behavior of AlSi7 Mg0.5 alloy during aging treatment. Scripta
Mater. 54, 99–103.
Li, Z., Samuel, A.M., Samuel, F.H., Ravindran, C., Valtierra, S., 2003. Effect of alloying
elements on the segregation and dissolution of CuAl2 phase in Al–Si–Cu 319
alloys. J. Mater. Sci. 38, 1203–1218.
Maruyama, N., Uemori, R., Hashimoto, N., Saga, M., Kikuchi, M., 1997. Effect of silicon
addition on the composition and structure of fine-scale precipitates in Al–Mg–Si
alloys. Scripta Mater. 36, 89–93.
Mishra, R.K., Smith, G.W., Baxter, W.J., Sachdev, A.K., Franetovic, V., 2001. The
sequence of precipitation in 339 aluminum castings. J. Mater. Sci. 36, 461–468.
Moustafa, M.A., Samuel, F.H., Doty, H.W., 2003. Effect of solution heat treatment and
additives on the microstructure of Al–Si (A413.1) automotive alloys. J. Mater.
Sci. 38, 4507–4522.
Murali, S., Arunkumar, Y., Chetty, P.V.J., Raman, K.S., Murthy, K.S.S., 1997. The effect
of preaging on the delayed aging of Al–7Si–0.3Mg. JOM 49, 29–33.
Möller, H., Govender, G., Stumpf, W.E., 2007. Natural and artificial aging response
of semisolid metal processed Al–Si–Mg alloy A356. Int. J. Cast Metal. Res. 20,
340–346.
Newkirk, J.W., Liu, Q., Mohammadi, A., 2002. Optimizing the aging heat treatment of
cast aluminum alloys. In: Das, S.K., Skillingberg, M.H. (Eds.), TMS Annual Meet-
ing:Automotive Alloys and Aluminum Sheet and Plate Rolling and Finishing
Technology Symposia. Seattle, WA, pp. 75–82.
Ogris, E., Wahlen, A., Lüchinger, H., Uggowitzer, P.J., 2002. On the silicon spheroidiza-
tion in Al–Si alloys. J. Light Met. 2, 263–269.
Ouellet, P., Samuel, F.H., 1999. Effect of Mg on the ageing behaviour of Al–Si–Cu 319
type aluminium casting alloys. J. Mater. Sci. 34, 4671–4697.
Pashley, D.W., Rhodes, J.W., Sendorek, A., 1966. Delayed ageing in
aluminum–magnesium–silicon alloys: effect on structure and mechanical
properties. J. Inst. Met. 94, 41–49.
 E. Sjölander, S. Seifeddine / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 210 (2010) 1249–1259
Pedersen, L., Arnberg, L., 2001. The effect of solution heat treatment and quenching
rates on mechanical properties and microstructures in AlSiMg foundry alloys.
Metall. Mater. Trans. A 32, 525–532.
Polmear, I.J., 2006. Light Alloys; From Traditional Alloys to Nanocrystals. Butter-
worth Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 43–69.
Reif, W., Dutkiewicz, J., Ciach, R., Yu, S., Krol, J., 1997a. Effect of ageing on the evolution
of precipitates in AlSiCuMg alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 234-236, 165–168.
Reif, W., Yu, S., Dutkiewicz, J., Ciach, R., Krol, J., 1997b. Pre-ageing of AlSiCuMg
alloys in relation to structure and mechanical properties. Mater. Design 18,
253–256.
Rometsch, P.A., Arnberg, L., Zhang, D.L., 1999. Modelling dissolution of Mg2 Si and
homogenisation in Al–Si–Mg casting alloys. Int. J. Cast Metal. Res. 12, 1–8.
Rometsch, P.A., Schaffer, G.B., 2000. Quench modelling of Al–7Si–Mg casting alloys.
Int. J. Cast Metal. Res. 12, 431–439.
Rometsch, P.A., Schaffer, G.B., 2002. An age hardening model for Al–7Si–Mg casting
alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A: Struct. 325, 424–434.
Rometsch, P.A., Schaffer, G.B., Taylor, J.A., 2001. Mass balance characterisation of
Al–7Si–Mg alloy microstructures as a function of solution treatment time. Int. J.
Cast Metal. Res. 14, 59–69.
Samuel, A.M., Gauthier, J., Samuel, F.H., 1996a. Microstructural aspects of the disso-
lution and melting of Al2 Cu phase in Al–Si alloys during solution heat treatment.
Metall. Mater. Trans. A 27, 1785–1798.
Samuel, A.M., Ouellet, P., Samuel, F.H., Doty, H.W., 1997. Microstructural interpre-
tation of thermal analysis of commercial 319 Al alloy with Mg and Sr additions.
AFS Trans. 105, 951–962.
Samuel, E.H., Samuel, A.M., Doty, H.W., 1996b. Factors controlling the type
and morphology of Cu-containing phases in 319 Al alloy. AFS Trans. 30,
893–901.
Samuel, F.H., 1998. Incipient melting of Al5 Mg8 Si6 Cu2 and Al2 Cu intermetallics in
unmodified and strontium-modified Al–Si–Cu–Mg (319) alloys during solution
heat treatment. J. Mater. Sci. 33, 2283–2297.
Seifeddine, S., Timelli, G., Svensson, I.L., 2007. Influence of quench rate on the
microstructure and mechanical properties of aluminium alloys A356 and A354.
Int. Foundry Res. 59, 2–10.
Shivkumar, S., Keller, C., Apelian, D., 1990a. Aging behavior in cast Al–Si–Mg alloys.
AFS Trans. 98, 905–911.
1259
Shivkumar, S., Ricci Jr., S., Keller, C., Apelian, D., 1990b. Effect of solution treatment
parameters on tensile properties of cast aluminum alloys. J. Heat Treating 8,
63–70.
Sokolowski, J.H., Sun, X.C., Byczynski, G., Northwood, D.O., Penrod, D.E., Thomas, R.,
Esseltine, A., 1995. Removal of copper-phase segregation and the subsequent
improvement in mechanical properties of cast 319 aluminum alloys by a two-
stage solution heat treatment. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 53, 385–392.
Taylor, J.A., St John, D.H., Barresi, J., Couper, M.J., 2000a. An empirical analysis of
trends in mechanical properties of T6 heat treated Al–Si–Mg casting alloys. Int.
J. Cast Metal. Res. 12, 419–430.
Taylor, J.A., St John, D.H., Barresi, J., Couper, M.J., 2000b. Influence of Mg content on
the microstructure and solid solution chemistry of Al–7%Si–Mg casting alloys
during solution treatment. Mater. Sci. Forum 331-337, 277–282.
Tiryakioglu, M., Shuey, R.T., 2007. Quench sensitivity of an Al–7 pct Si-0.6 pct Mg
alloy: characterization and modeling. Metall. Mater. Trans. B 38, 575–582.
Wang, G., Bian, X., Liu, X., Zhang, J., 2004. Effect of Mg on age hardening and precip-
itation behavior of an AlSiCuMg cast alloy. J. Mater. Sci. 39, 2535–2537.
Wang, G., Sun, Q., Feng, L., Hui, L., Jing, C., 2007. Influence of Cu content on ageing
behavior of AlSiMgCu cast alloys. Mater. Design 28, 1001–1005.
Wang, Q.G., Davidson, C.J., 2001. Solidification and precipitation behaviour of
Al–Si–Mg casting alloys. J. Mater. Sci. 36, 739–750.
Wang, X., Esmaeili, S., Lloyd, D.J., 2006. The sequence of precipitation in the
Al–Mg–Si–Cu alloy AA6111. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 37, 2691–2699.
Wang, X., Poole, W.J., Esmaeili, S., Lloyd, D.J., Embury, J.D., 2003. Precipitation
strengthening of the aluminum alloy AA6111. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 34,
2913–2924.
Zhang, D.L., 1996. Precipitation of excess silicon during heat treatment of cast
Al–7 wt%Si–0.4 wt%Mg alloy. Mater. Sci. Forum 217-222, 771–776.
Zhang, D.L., StJohn, D.H., 1995. The effect of composition and heat treatment on
the microstructure and mechanical properties of cast Al–7 wt%Si–Mg alloys. In:
Casting & Solidification of Light Alloys, Gold Coast, IMMA, pp. 21–25.
Zhang, D.L., Zheng, L., 1996. The quench sensitivity of cast Al–7 Wt Pet Si–0.4 Wt pct
Mg alloy. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 27, 3983–3991.
Zhang, D.L., Zheng, L.H., StJohn, D.H., 2002. Effect of a short solution treat-
ment time on microstructure and mechanical properties of modified
Al–7 wt.%Si–0.3 wt.%Mg alloy. J. Light Met. 2, 27–36.