In my recent work on the lost foam casting process for grey cast iron end caps, I have systematically investigated the influence of gating system configurations and key process parameters on the quality of castings. The lost foam casting process, also known as expendable pattern casting, has become one of the most promising near-net-shape manufacturing technologies due to its design flexibility, low production cost, and suitability for mass production. However, the presence of the foam pattern introduces complex physical and chemical phenomena during mold filling, which often leads to defects such as gas porosity, slag inclusion, shrinkage porosity, and shrinkage cavities. In this study, I designed three distinct gating system schemes — top gating, middle gating, and bottom gating — and evaluated their performance through numerical simulations using ProCAST software. I further employed orthogonal experimental design to optimize the pouring temperature and negative pressure for the bottom gating system. The results provided a reliable reference for the production of end cap iron castings using the lost foam casting process.
Chemical Composition and Casting Structure
The end cap casting is made of grey cast iron HT200, and its nominal chemical composition is summarized in Table 1. The mechanical properties of grey cast iron depend significantly on the graphite morphology and the matrix structure, which are strongly influenced by the cooling rate and the pouring conditions. In lost foam casting, the thermal degradation of the foam pattern absorbs heat and generates gas, which may alter the solidification behavior compared to conventional casting. Therefore, controlling the chemical composition within the specified range is essential to ensure the final properties of the casting.
| Element | Mass fraction / % |
|---|---|
| C | 3.3 – 3.5 |
| Si | 1.9 – 2.3 |
| Mn | 0.6 – 0.8 |
| P | ≤ 0.30 |
| S | ≤ 0.12 |
The end cap has a three-dimensional shape with overall dimensions of 120 mm × 240 mm × 240 mm, a gross mass of 9.259 kg, and a minimum wall thickness of 9 mm. The structure contains several thick sections, thin ribs, and flanges, which can act as hot spots during solidification. These geometric features make the casting susceptible to shrinkage defects, especially at the top of the casting, if the gating system cannot provide adequate feeding. The casting geometry is shown in the schematic representation in Figure 1 (inserted later). To improve production efficiency, I designed the gating system to produce two end caps per mold, sharing a common sprue and runner system.
Design of Gating Systems for Lost Foam Casting
For lost foam casting, the gating system dimensions must be larger than those used in conventional sand casting because the foam pattern creates additional flow resistance and requires more metal to decompose and displace the polystyrene foam. In practice, the cross-sectional areas of the gating components for grey iron castings are typically increased by 20% to 50% compared to conventional designs. I adopted a closed gating system, which is commonly used for grey iron castings. The ratio of the total cross-sectional areas of the inner gate, runner, and sprue is given by:
$$ \sum F_{\text{inner}} : \sum F_{\text{runner}} : \sum F_{\text{sprue}} = 1 : 1.2 : 1.4 \tag{1} $$
To calculate the total inner gate area, I used the hydraulic formula commonly applied in foundry engineering:
$$ \sum F_{\text{inner}} = \frac{G}{0.31 \mu t \sqrt{H_p}} \tag{2} $$
where \(\sum F_{\text{inner}}\) is the total cross-sectional area of the inner gate (\( \text{cm}^2 \)), \(G\) is the mass of liquid metal passing through the inner gate (kg), \(\mu\) is the total flow loss coefficient, \(H_p\) is the average static pressure head (cm), and \(t\) is the pouring time (s). The pouring time \(t\) is calculated by the empirical formula for small and medium castings:
$$ t = K_t \sqrt[3]{G} + \sqrt{G} \tag{3} $$
In equation (3), \(K_t\) is a correction factor, typically taken as 0.85 when negative pressure is applied. The calculated cross-sectional areas for the three gating schemes are shown in Table 2.
| Gating scheme | Inner gate / mm² | Runner / mm² | Sprue / mm² |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top gating | 7 × 24 | 9 × 24 | 24 × 24 |
| Bottom gating | 10 × 35 | 12 × 35 | 35 × 35 |
| Middle gating | 11 × 11 | 11 × 27 | 27 × 27 |
Each gating system was designed to feed two castings simultaneously. For the top gating scheme, the metal enters from the top of the casting and flows downward due to gravity. For the middle gating scheme, the metal is introduced at the middle height of the casting, which allows for a relatively shorter filling path. For the bottom gating scheme, the metal rises from the bottom of the casting, providing a smooth and controlled filling pattern. These three schemes represent distinct filling modes that significantly affect the flow stability, temperature distribution, and solidification sequence in the lost foam casting process.
Numerical Simulation Setup
I used the commercial finite element software ProCAST to simulate the lost foam casting process for the end cap. The three-dimensional solid model of the casting and the gating system was exported in IGES format and imported into ProCAST’s Mesh module. The surface mesh size for the casting and the gating system was set to 10 mm, while the surface mesh size for the sand flask was set to 20 mm. After generating the surface mesh, I checked and repaired any defects, and then generated the tetrahedral volume mesh. The mesh quality was sufficient to resolve the thin walls and complex details of the casting.
The thermal and flow boundary conditions were configured as follows. The gravity direction was set along the negative Y axis. The materials were assigned as: the sprue cup and one quarter of the sprue were assigned the alloy EN-GJL-200 with property type “Alloy”, while the remaining parts of the gating system and the casting were assigned the property type “Foam”, representing the foam pattern. The sand mold was assigned the property type “Sand Permeable Foam” with the material property “Mold”. The heat transfer coefficients were defined as:
- Casting/sand mold interface: \(h = 500 \, \mathrm{W/(m^2 \cdot K)}\), type COINC.
- Foam/sand mold interface: \(h = 100 \, \mathrm{W/(m^2 \cdot K)}\), type COINC.
The initial pouring temperature was set to 1,360 °C. The boundary condition at the pouring cup was defined as air cooling, and two pressure boundary conditions were applied at the pouring cup and the sand flask to generate a negative pressure of 0.04 MPa. The lost foam casting module was activated, and the physical properties of the expandable polystyrene (EPS) foam were specified: foam density \(22 \, \mathrm{kg/m^3}\), thermal conductivity \(0.15 \, \mathrm{W/(m^2 \cdot K)}\), specific heat \(3.7 \, \mathrm{kJ/(kg \cdot K)}\), latent heat \(100 \, \mathrm{kJ/kg}\), melting temperature 350 °C, and glass transition temperature 330 °C. After completing the setup, I ran the simulation and observed the filling and solidification results in the Viewer module.
Filling and Solidification Analysis of Three Gating Schemes
Top Gating System
The filling process of the top gating system is shown in Figure 3 (not reproduced here). Because the filling direction coincides with gravity, the molten metal advances rapidly. Every 30% of the filling volume was completed in about 3.7 s, and the total filling time was 10.9492 s. However, the metal front exhibited significant color fluctuations, indicating the vigorous decomposition of the foam pattern. The high-speed falling metal caused severe turbulence, splashing, and gas entrainment. This unstable filling behavior is undesirable for the lost foam casting process because it increases the risk of oxide inclusions and gas porosity.
The solidification sequence of the top gating system is illustrated in Figure 4 (not reproduced). The solidification started from the thin outer walls and ribs, while the thick sections remained liquid for a long time. The total solidification time was 416.2092 s. The gating system solidified earlier than the top of the casting, so the sprue and runner could not provide any feeding to the casting. As a result, a large shrinkage cavity formed at the top of the casting, which would render the casting defective.
Middle Gating System
For the middle gating system, the molten metal was introduced at the mid-height of the casting through four inner gates, two for each casting. During filling, two separate metal streams met inside the cavity, leading to possible turbulence and gas entrapment. The filling times for each 30% increment were about 3.9 s, and the total filling time was 11.7197 s. Although the filling time was slightly longer than that of the top gating system, the flow pattern was still not smooth due to the stream collision. The total solidification time was 416.4797 s. Since the inner gates were located far from the top thick sections, the feeding ability of the gating system was limited. The simulation results showed a large external shrinkage cavity at the top of the casting, indicating that the middle gating scheme is not suitable for this end cap geometry.
Bottom Gating System
In the bottom gating system, the molten metal entered the mold from the bottom and rose upward through the cavity. The filling behavior was significantly improved compared to the other two schemes. The first 33% of the filling took 6.1971 s, followed by 2.5961 s and 4.1758 s for the next two intervals, giving a total filling time of 12.969 s. The overall filling rate followed a slow-fast-slow pattern. At the beginning, the high temperature of the molten metal generated a large amount of gas from the decomposition of the EPS foam; the limited permeability of the coating and the dry sand restrained the discharge of gas, slowing the filling. Later, the foam ahead of the metal front was preheated and decomposed, producing less gas, so the filling speed increased. In the final stage, the metal had to travel a longer distance and lost some heat, which reduced the filling rate. The bottom gating provided a smooth and front-rising filling pattern without splashing or obvious turbulence. The metal front exhibited only minor fluctuations, which minimizes the risk of slag inclusion and surface defects.
The solidification of the bottom gating system took 556.224 s, which was longer than the other two schemes. However, the gating system — especially the large sprue and runner — remained liquid until the late stages of solidification, providing an effective feeding path to the casting. As a result, no shrinkage cavities or porosity were observed at the top of the casting or in the thick sections. The casting quality was excellent from the perspective of solidification feeding.
Comparison of Solidification Times
Figure 9 (not reproduced) compares the solidification time distributions for the three gating systems. The top and middle gating systems showed similar solidification patterns, with the thick sections remaining molten much longer than the rest of the casting. In contrast, the bottom gating system exhibited more uniform solidification; the thick sections solidified relatively faster, while the slower solidification regions were confined to the sprue and runner. This confirms that the bottom gating system has superior feeding capability and promotes a favorable temperature gradient for directional solidification.
Figure 10 (not reproduced) presents the porosity volumes for the three gating systems. I found that the top gating produced a porosity volume of 1.50 cm³, the middle gating produced 2.38 cm³, and the bottom gating produced 3.13 cm³. At first glance, bottom gating shows a larger total porosity volume. However, the porosity in the top and middle gating systems was concentrated as large shrinkage cavities at the top of the casting, whereas the porosity in the bottom gating system was dispersed and small, without any major shrinkage cavity. Since dispersed micro-porosity can be tolerated more easily than a large macro-shrinkage cavity, the bottom gating scheme was selected for further optimization. No riser was designed because the dispersed porosity volume was acceptable and the casting dimensions were within tolerances.
Orthogonal Experiment for Process Parameter Optimization
After selecting the bottom gating system, I performed a systematic optimization of the pouring temperature and the negative pressure, which are the two most influential process parameters in the lost foam casting process. I designed a \(L_9(3^2)\) orthogonal experiment with two factors and three levels. The factors and levels are listed in Table 3.
| Level | Factor A: Pouring temperature / °C | Factor B: Negative pressure / MPa |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1,360 | 0.02 |
| 2 | 1,390 | 0.04 |
| 3 | 1,420 | 0.06 |
The nine experiments were simulated using the same numerical model, and the resulting porosity volumes were recorded. Table 4 shows the full orthogonal array and the corresponding porosity volumes for each test. It is noteworthy that the porosity volume does not vary monotonically with either the pouring temperature or the negative pressure. This non-linear behavior is due to the competing effects of foam decomposition, gas evacuation, metal fluidity, and solidification shrinkage.
| Test No. | A: Pouring temperature / °C | B: Negative pressure / MPa | Porosity volume / cm³ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1,360 | 0.02 | 4.728 |
| 2 | 1,360 | 0.04 | 3.128 |
| 3 | 1,360 | 0.06 | 2.930 |
| 4 | 1,390 | 0.02 | 3.492 |
| 5 | 1,390 | 0.04 | 3.128 |
| 6 | 1,390 | 0.06 | 3.517 |
| 7 | 1,420 | 0.02 | 3.321 |
| 8 | 1,420 | 0.04 | 3.578 |
| 9 | 1,420 | 0.06 | 3.005 |
To identify the significance of each factor, I performed a range analysis. For each factor, I calculated the sum of the porosity volumes at each level, denoted as \(K_1\), \(K_2\), and \(K_3\), and then computed the range \(R\) as the difference between the maximum and minimum \(K\) values. The results are presented in Table 5.
| Statistical index | Factor A (Pouring temperature) | Factor B (Negative pressure) |
|---|---|---|
| \(K_1\) | 10.786 | 11.541 |
| \(K_2\) | 10.137 | 9.834 |
| \(K_3\) | 9.904 | 9.447 |
| \(R\) | 0.882 | 2.094 |
| Primary/secondary factors | B > A | |
| Optimal parameters | A3B3 | |
The range analysis clearly indicates that the negative pressure (factor B) has a much stronger influence on the porosity volume than the pouring temperature (factor A), because the range \(R_B = 2.094\) is more than twice the range \(R_A = 0.882\). This suggests that controlling the negative pressure is critical to achieving sound castings in the lost foam casting process. The optimal combination based on the orthogonal experiment appears to be A3B3, i.e., a pouring temperature of 1,420 °C and a negative pressure of 0.06 MPa. Although test No. 3 (A1B3) gave a slightly lower porosity volume of 2.930 cm³ than test No. 9 (A3B3) with 3.005 cm³, the higher pouring temperature of 1,420 °C is beneficial for the complete decomposition of the foam pattern, reducing the risk of carbon defects such as lustrous carbon. Moreover, the filling process for A3B3 was smoother and more stable than that for A1B3. Therefore, I selected the pouring temperature of 1,420 °C and the negative pressure of 0.06 MPa as the optimal process parameters.
Production Verification
To validate the numerical simulation results, I implemented the optimal process parameters in actual production. The end cap castings were produced using the bottom gating system, with a pouring temperature of 1,420 °C and a negative pressure of 0.06 MPa. The produced castings were inspected for defects. The results showed that the castings were free from major shrinkage cavities, gas porosity, and slag inclusions. The microstructure and mechanical properties satisfied the requirements for HT200 grey cast iron. The process yield, defined as the ratio of the casting mass to the total poured metal mass, was calculated to be 77.7%. This value indicates that the gating system design is efficient and that the lost foam casting process can be economically used for this end cap component.
Discussion on the Role of Lost Foam Casting Parameters
In the lost foam casting process, the interaction between the molten metal and the foam pattern governs the filling and solidification behavior. The foam pattern vaporizes when in contact with the advancing metal front, creating a gas gap that affects the heat transfer and the metal flow. A higher pouring temperature increases the fluidity of the liquid metal and accelerates the decomposition of the foam, which helps in reducing defects such as cold laps and misruns. However, excessively high pouring temperatures may increase the gas generation rate beyond the evacuation capacity of the coating and sand, leading to gas porosity and rough surfaces. On the other hand, a higher negative pressure enhances the removal of gas and the collapse of the foam residue, but too high a negative pressure can cause the sand mold to collapse or create local blockages.
The present study shows that for the grey cast iron end cap, the negative pressure is the dominant factor controlling porosity. The optimal negative pressure of 0.06 MPa provided sufficient suction to evacuate the gas without disturbing the sand packing. The pouring temperature of 1,420 °C was found to be the best compromise between complete foam degradation and acceptable filling stability. These findings are consistent with the general guidelines for lost foam casting of grey iron, where the pouring temperature is often in the range of 1,380–1,450 °C and the negative pressure is around 0.04–0.08 MPa.
Mathematical Model of the Filling Process in Lost Foam Casting
To better understand the filling dynamics, I considered the momentum balance of the molten metal advancing into the foam pattern. The effective pressure driving the metal front can be expressed as:
$$ P_{\text{eff}} = P_{\text{metallostatic}} + P_{\text{vacuum}} – P_{\text{gas}} – P_{\text{resistance}} \tag{4} $$
where \(P_{\text{metallostatic}} = \rho g h\) is the metallostatic pressure, \(P_{\text{vacuum}}\) is the negative pressure applied to the mold, \(P_{\text{gas}}\) is the gas pressure generated by the foam decomposition, and \(P_{\text{resistance}}\) is the flow resistance from the foam and coating. In the bottom gating system, the metallostatic pressure increases as the metal rises, which naturally stabilizes the flow and reduces the risk of aspiration.
The gas generation rate per unit area of the foam pattern can be described by an Arrhenius-type equation:
$$ \dot{g} = A \exp\left(-\frac{E_a}{R T}\right) \tag{5} $$
where \(A\) is a pre-exponential factor, \(E_a\) is the activation energy for the thermal decomposition of EPS, \(R\) is the universal gas constant, and \(T\) is the local temperature at the metal front. This equation explains why increasing the pouring temperature exponentially enhances the gas generation rate, which must be balanced by the negative pressure and the permeability of the coating.
The solidification of grey cast iron is accompanied by the precipitation of graphite, which causes volumetric expansion that can offset solidification shrinkage. This unique behavior is beneficial in the lost foam casting process because it reduces the need for large risers. The total volume change during solidification can be expressed as:
$$ \Delta V = \Delta V_{\gamma} + \Delta V_{\text{graphite}} – \Delta V_{\text{shrinkage}} \tag{6} $$
where \(\Delta V_{\gamma}\) is the contraction of the austenite phase, \(\Delta V_{\text{graphite}}\) is the expansion due to graphite precipitation, and \(\Delta V_{\text{shrinkage}}\) is the liquid-to-solid contraction. In my simulations, the gray iron showed a near-net-shape solidification with minimal macrosegregation and only dispersed micro-porosity, which validates the effectiveness of the optimized bottom gating system.
Comparative Analysis of Porosity Formation
To further quantify the defect susceptibility, I evaluated the porosity distribution in the three gating systems. The results are summarized in Table 6, which lists the maximum porosity location and the type of defect.
| Gating system | Total porosity volume / cm³ | Major defect location | Defect type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top | 1.50 | Top of casting | Large shrinkage cavity |
| Middle | 2.38 | Top of casting | Large shrinkage cavity |
| Bottom | 3.13 | Dispersed thin sections | Micro-porosity |
Although the bottom gating system shows a larger total porosity volume in the simulation, the porosity is dispersed and does not impair the structural integrity of the casting. The concentrated shrinkage cavities in the top and middle gating systems are unacceptable because they significantly reduce the load-bearing area. Therefore, the selection of the bottom gating system is justified not only by the absence of major cavities but also by the smoother filling pattern and better temperature gradient.
Effect of Pouring Temperature and Negative Pressure on Porosity
To visualize the combined effects of pouring temperature and negative pressure on the porosity volume, I constructed a response table based on the orthogonal experiment. Figure 11 (not shown) would present a contour plot of porosity volume against the two factors. Although I cannot include the actual plot here, the data in Table 4 can be interpreted as follows. At a fixed negative pressure of 0.02 MPa, increasing the pouring temperature from 1,360 °C to 1,420 °C reduced the porosity volume from 4.728 cm³ to 3.321 cm³, a reduction of about 29.8%. At a fixed negative pressure of 0.04 MPa, the porosity volume changed from 3.128 cm³ at 1,360 °C to 3.128 cm³ at 1,390 °C and then increased to 3.578 cm³ at 1,420 °C. This non-monotonic trend suggests that an intermediate temperature at moderate negative pressure may create unstable gas evacuation. At a fixed negative pressure of 0.06 MPa, the porosity volume remained relatively low across all temperatures, with the minimum occurring at 1,360 °C (2.930 cm³) and the second best at 1,420 °C (3.005 cm³). The difference of 0.075 cm³ is negligible. Considering the benefits of higher temperature for foam decomposition and defect reduction, I chose 1,420 °C as the optimal level.
The strong effect of negative pressure can be explained by examining the pressure balance in the mold. As the foam decomposes, the gas products must be removed through the permeable coating and the dry sand. A higher negative pressure increases the pressure gradient, accelerating the gas removal and preventing the gas from penetrating back into the metal front. This reduces the likelihood of gas porosity. However, when the negative pressure exceeds a critical value, the sand may be fluidized and drawn into the cavity, causing sand inclusion defects. The optimal negative pressure of 0.06 MPa lies within the safe range for the sand size and coating permeability used in this study.
Feeding Efficiency and Process Yield
The process yield is an important economic indicator in foundry production. For the optimized bottom gating system, I calculated the yield using the following formula:
$$ \eta = \frac{m_{\text{casting}}}{m_{\text{casting}} + m_{\text{gating}}} \times 100\% \tag{7} $$
where \(m_{\text{casting}}\) is the total mass of the sound castings (two end caps, each 9.259 kg, giving 18.518 kg) and \(m_{\text{gating}}\) is the mass of the gating system including the sprue, runner, and inner gates. From the 3D model, the gating mass was calculated to be approximately 5.33 kg, giving a total poured mass of 23.85 kg. Thus, the process yield is:
$$ \eta = \frac{18.518}{23.85} \times 100\% \approx 77.7\% \tag{8} $$
This yield is considered reasonable for a lost foam casting process where the gating system has to be larger than that used in conventional casting. The bottom gating system used a larger cross-sectional area than the top and middle systems, which slightly increased the gating mass. However, the improved casting quality and the elimination of defective castings more than compensate for the material loss in the gating system. In future work, I could optimize the gating geometry further to reduce the runner volume while maintaining the feeding capability.
Practical Recommendations for Lost Foam Casting of End Caps
Based on my numerical simulations and experimental verification, I have established a set of practical recommendations for the lost foam casting of grey cast iron end caps:
- Use a bottom gating system to achieve smooth, laminar filling and to avoid entrapment of gas and foam debris.
- Set the pouring temperature to about 1,420 °C to ensure complete decomposition of the EPS foam while maintaining sufficient fluidity.
- Apply a negative pressure of 0.06 MPa to effectively evacuate the decomposition gases without disturbing the sand pack.
- Ensure the coating permeability is adequate for the specific negative pressure; the coating should be thick enough to resist sand erosion but thin enough to allow gas passage.
- Monitor the foam pattern density, which should be in the range of 20–25 kg/m³ for grey iron castings to balance strength and gas generation.
- Use a closed gating system with the area ratio given in equation (1) to ensure proper filling without aspiration.
- Inspect the castings for dispersed micro-porosity, which is acceptable for grey cast iron, but eliminate any concentrated shrinkage cavities by adjusting the feeding geometry.
Limitations and Future Work
Although the numerical simulations provided valuable insights, I recognize that the modeling of the coating layer was simplified. In the actual lost foam casting process, the coating has a finite thickness and a specific permeability that affects the gas evacuation and heat transfer. The ProCAST model used a uniform heat transfer coefficient for the foam/sand interface, which does not fully capture the local variations caused by the coating. In future simulations, I plan to include a more detailed model of the coating layer, specifying its thickness, thermal conductivity, and permeability as a separate material domain. This would improve the accuracy of the filling and solidification predictions.
Another limitation is that the orthogonal experiment only considered two factors. Other parameters, such as foam pattern density, coating thickness, sand grain size, and vibration parameters, may also influence the casting quality. I intend to extend the experimental matrix to include these factors in the future. Additionally, I observed that the porosity volume in the simulation is not directly comparable to the actual porosity measured in the casting, as simulation results often scale with mesh size and porosity models. Therefore, a direct correlation between simulation and experimental porosity should be established using radiography or Archimedes density measurements.
Conclusions
In this work, I systematically designed and optimized the lost foam casting process for grey cast iron end caps. The following conclusions can be drawn:
- Among the three gating systems — top, middle, and bottom — the bottom gating system was the most suitable for this end cap geometry. The top and middle gating systems produced large shrinkage cavities at the top of the casting, whereas the bottom gating system provided smooth filling, favorable temperature gradients, and effective feeding.
- The numerical simulations using ProCAST effectively predicted the filling sequence and defect formation in the lost foam casting process. The filling time for the bottom gating system was about 12.97 s, and the total solidification time was about 556.2 s.
- The orthogonal experiment showed that the negative pressure has a more significant influence on the porosity volume than the pouring temperature. The range values were \(R_B = 2.094\) and \(R_A = 0.882\), respectively.
- The optimal process parameters were found to be a pouring temperature of 1,420 °C and a negative pressure of 0.06 MPa. Under these conditions, the porosity defect volume was 3.005 cm³, which was dispersed micro-porosity without major shrinkage cavities.
- The production verification confirmed that the castings produced with the optimized parameters had satisfactory microstructure and mechanical properties, meeting the HT200 requirements. The process yield was 77.7%.
- The findings of this study provide a practical reference for the design of lost foam casting processes for end cap-type grey cast iron castings, enabling shorter trial cycles, lower production costs, and improved economic benefits.
The lost foam casting process remains a sophisticated manufacturing route that demands careful consideration of pattern properties, coating permeability, gating design, and process parameters. My study demonstrates that combining numerical simulation with orthogonal experimental design is an efficient approach to optimize such a complex process. The methodology can be extended to other metallic alloys and component geometries, contributing to the broader application of lost foam casting in modern foundry practice.
As the demand for lightweight, high-integrity castings continues to grow, the lost foam casting process offers a compelling combination of design freedom and dimensional accuracy. By refining the process through simulation-driven optimization, I am confident that the lost foam casting process will play an increasingly important role in the manufacturing of grey cast iron components, especially end caps and similar hollow or shell-like structures. The insights gained from this research not only solve the immediate quality issues of the end cap but also provide a robust framework for future process development in lost foam casting.