1. © Prof. B. Ravi, I.I.T. Bombay Project Name E-Foundry Project Student Name: Degree, Year: Branch: Institute: Student Name: Degree, Year: Branch: Institute:

2. © Prof. B. Ravi, I.I.T. Bombay Part Model Part Metal:Cast Iron Mold Material: Sand 80 70 80 40 20 40 80 60 40 20 140

3. © Prof. B. Ravi, I.I.T. Bombay Part Simulation (without feeder) Hottest Region

4. © Prof. B. Ravi, I.I.T. Bombay Feeder Design

5. © Prof. B. Ravi, I.I.T. Bombay Feeder Design

6. © Prof. B. Ravi, I.I.T. Bombay Simulation with Designed Feeder Feeder D = 62 mm Feeder H = 93 mm Neck D = 60 mm Neck H = 10 mm Observation: Feeder is hotter than part hot spot. A small island of high temperature is still visible inside the part.

7. © Prof. B. Ravi, I.I.T. Bombay Simulation with Larger Feeder Feeder D = 75 mm Feeder H = 112 mm Neck D = 49 mm Neck H = 10 mm Observation: Feeder is hotter than part hot spot. There are no hot spots visible inside the part. Hence feeder design is ok.

8. © Prof. B. Ravi, I.I.T. Bombay Simulation with Smaller Feeder Feeder D = 50 mm Feeder H = 100 mm Neck D = 40 mm Neck H = 10 mm Observation: Feeder is less hot than part hot spot. This will work only if an insulated sleeve is placed around the feeder.

9. © Prof. B. Ravi, I.I.T. Bombay Comparison Designed FeederLarger FeederSmaller Feeder QualitySmall shrinkageNo shrinkageMajor shrinkage Yield62%48%70% RemarkUnacceptableAcceptableSuitable with sleeve Feeder D = 50 mm Feeder H = 100 mm Neck D = 40 mm Neck H = 10 mm Feeder D = 75 mm Feeder H = 112 mm Neck D = 60 mm Neck H = 10 mm Feeder D = 62 mm Feeder H = 93 mm Neck D = 49 mm Neck H = 10 mm Conclusion: Design with larger feeder is recommended, since it shows no shrinkage defect part, and there are not additional item (sleeve) costs.