Where the program started
The customer builds circulation pump sets for industrial process cooling. The housing had been machined from 6082 billet since launch, which suited the first few hundred units a year and stopped suiting anything once the product line found its market. When they approached us they were at roughly 3,000 units annually with a plan to reach 8,000, and their machining cell could not absorb that without a second shift and another machining centre.
Two things made this a straightforward casting candidate: the geometry was already close to castable, and the volume sat well clear of the 1,000 to 2,000 unit threshold where tooling starts to pay for itself. One thing made it interesting. The part had to hold pressure after being machined, which is where pump housing conversions succeed or fail.
Choosing A360 over A380
A380 would have been the cheaper and easier answer. It has the best castability and machinability of the common die casting alloys and the lowest cost, and on a dry bracket it would have been the obvious specification.
Two properties ruled it out. A380 carries 3.0 to 4.0% copper against A360’s 0.6% maximum, which is the main reason its corrosion resistance is rated fair rather than good, and this housing lives in coastal and washdown environments under a coating that will eventually be scratched. And A360 is rated excellent for pressure tightness against A380’s good, reflecting its better feeding behaviour and lower tendency to interconnected microporosity. On a part where a leak means scrap after all the machining value has been added, that is worth more than the alloy premium.
At 317 MPa tensile strength and 3.5% elongation A360 also gave enough margin at the mounting flange, the only meaningfully loaded feature.
Keeping the porosity away from the bore
This was the engineering work that mattered. Machining removes the dense chill layer, roughly 0.3 to 0.5 mm of the best material in the casting, exposing whatever lies beneath. Gas and shrinkage porosity concentrate in the regions that freeze last, so the problem reduces to keeping those regions out from under the bore and the sealing face.
Once a gate is cut in steel that geometry is fixed, so it had to be settled before tooling. Flow and solidification simulation went through four gating iterations. The accepted design puts a three-point fan gate on the mounting flange side, sweeping the fill front away from the bore and into two overflows sized to catch the leading, gas-rich metal, with squeeze pins feeding the two heavy bosses. Sectioned first articles confirmed the model: every machined face on the part sits over material that solidified early.
The machining allowance was set to match. The bore takes 1.2 mm on diameter, enough to remove the cast draft and taper of the cored hole. The sealing face takes a deliberately minimal 0.5 mm so the cut stays inside the chill layer, which is the standard approach on any face that has to remain pressure tight.
Machining on cast datums, in one setup
A casting arrives with no flat, square reference anywhere on it, so the datum scheme was defined on the part drawing before the die was designed. Three cast pads raised 1.2 mm establish the primary plane, and all three sit in the fixed die half. Nothing in the reference frame crosses the parting line, which matters because parting line mismatch of 0.1 to 0.15 mm is normal and would otherwise appear as fixture error on every part.
The bore and the sealing face are machined in one setup on a 4-axis horizontal centre, so their perpendicularity comes from the machine rather than from fixture repeatability, which is worth about 0.05 mm on its own. A single-insert fly cut produces the sealing face, removing insert-to-insert height variation from the flatness result.
Leak testing, and what happens when a part fails
Every housing is air-decay tested at 8 bar against a 0.5 cm³/min threshold, on a fixture that seals the same faces the finished assembly does. Testing at 1.33 times working pressure is deliberate, giving margin against a marginal path that would open later in service.
The more useful decision was agreeing the failure route in advance. Parts that fail go to vacuum resin impregnation, which seals interconnected microporosity without affecting dimensions, and are retested. Qualifying that with the customer before production release meant the first non-conforming part was a routine rework rather than a program discussion. First-pass yield settled at 96.4%.
Where it landed
Piece cost came in at $12.40 against roughly $41 machined, a 70% reduction and about $229,000 a year at 8,000 units. Machining dropped from 22 minutes to 4.2 minutes per part, releasing the capacity the customer had been planning to buy.
Across the first twelve months and 8,140 units shipped there were no leak escapes, and the Ø52 H7 bore held Cpk 1.67 over thirty consecutive lots. The coated exterior was qualified at 2,000 hours neutral salt spray on a duplex epoxy primer and super-durable polyester topcoat over trivalent chromate. That is well above the 500 to 1,000 hours a standard single-coat powder system delivers, and it was panel-qualified for this program specifically rather than assumed.
The part still runs on the original single-cavity tool. At 8,000 units a year a second cavity does not pay for itself, and that arithmetic is worth revisiting only if the volume roughly doubles.