Theof crusher frame products is relatively mature, and the process design ideas are generally similar, and the yield is very high. The main difference is whether the relatively centralized feeding mode with larger risers or the relatively dispersed feeding mode with more risers.
ProCAST simulation software was used to simulate and analyze the 7 riser (relatively centralized feeding) process and 10 riser (relatively decentralized feeding) process. The simulation results show that the feeding effect of 10 riser process is better. Under the same process conditions, the shrinkage prediction results of scheme 1 (Fig. 1) and scheme 2 (Fig. 2) are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 respectively. It should be noted that in order to reduce the amount of data, the chill is omitted in the simulation process, so the prediction of shrinkage cavity will be larger than the actual situation.
Analysis of casting CAE simulation results: because the product belongs to box type complex structure, it is impossible to completely eliminate shrinkage porosity in the casting process. There is little difference in the total amount of predicted shrinkage porosity between the two kinds of frame products, but in the front wall part of the product with concentrated stress, the number and size of shrinkage porosity shown in scheme 1 are significantly larger than those in scheme 2. Therefore, the solidification simulation result of scheme 2 is better than that of scheme 1.
The box structure (scheme 1) is more complex and prone to casting defects compared with the operation
(1) If there are too many cores in casting, the exhaust condition is poor, and the drying and exhaust measures are not in place, the molten steel will boil during the casting process, resulting in porosity defects and even scrap;
(2) There is a lot of work in core making, and it is difficult to match the mold and clean the sand;
(3) MT flaw detection can not be carried out in the box, small cracks and other defects can not be found and treated in time.
Therefore, the casting process quality control condition of scheme 2 is obviously better than that of scheme 1.