• This forum is the machine-generated translation of www.cad3d.it/forum1 - the Italian design community. Several terms are not translated correctly.

cost molds for ground casting

  • Thread starter Thread starter vinnn
  • Start date Start date

vinnn

Guest
Bye to all,
I am new to the forum and therefore I take advantage of it to introduce myself.. . .
my name is vincenzo and I am designer at the ferrari; in the spare time (poco) I'm trying to design a two-time engine of a small engine, and here the question:
having to realize the two aluminum semicarters, and having in mind to realize them by casting in the ground, how much could the molds cost (wood or resin)? not needed a detailed estimate, even an indicative figure is fine, it is only to have an idea of the thing....

Thank you in advance!! !
 
Hello, Vinnn, I think you will soon be answered by experts of matter.
in general you must see the "pezzo" in order to be advised correctly.
in some cases it could even convent the processing from full to place of fusion.
depends on the size, the geometric complexity and the number of pieces to make.
In summary, if I could post a step of math would be better.
 
maxopus said:
Hello, Vinnn, I think you will soon be answered by experts of matter.
in general you must see the "pezzo" in order to be advised correctly.
in some cases it could even convent the processing from full to place of fusion.
depends on the size, the geometric complexity and the number of pieces to make.
In summary, if I could post a step of math would be better.
Click to expand...
vinnn said:
Bye to all,
I am new to the forum and therefore I take advantage of it to introduce myself.. . .
my name is vincenzo and I am designer at the ferrari; in the spare time (poco) I'm trying to design a two-time engine of a small engine, and here the question:
having to realize the two aluminum semicarters, and having in mind to realize them by casting in the ground, how much could the molds cost (wood or resin)? not needed a detailed estimate, even an indicative figure is fine, it is only to have an idea of the thing....

Thank you in advance!! !
Click to expand...
Hi.
as it says or better writes maxopus
It's hard to direct you without a drawing a sketch a jpeg with 3 sizes of the encumbrance
the world of foundry models (and generally industrial molding) is a more complex moment
Thank you very much
 
I also tried to extract the internal "empty" and the outer shells for the dissolution of the molds: to create them I thought I used wooden blocks to cut off from the full (in this regard I already performed for each piece the simulation to the mill and I got the machine code nc)
 

Attachments

having therefore a minimum of familiarity with the cam (I use featurecam) I had in fact thought also to be able to obtain the two semicarter of the full, but also in this case I am not aware of the costs....

Moreover, if you opted for the foundry road and then decided to make the models for the ground moulds (low density resin), what would the model need? would be sufficient the mathematicians of the finished pieces with fittings and deforms, or leave everything without fittings and deforms and if they see it according to the expected tool to which they are accustomed?
I do not know how many degrees to attribute for internal and external surfaces, nor what scale factor to use (I know that for aluminum is 1.7 but could vary according to the alloy used in foundry, which I do not know)
 
I forgot:
I could not attribute a "grade of complexity" to my design, but I can say that it is a prototype, it will be two pairs of semicarter to be produced; Then, if everything had to work, I would also be willing to start a small series (the resin models for the molds at this point would already be ready and the costs would fall, assuming that the fusion on the ground represents the lower expense than the realization of the models)


Thank you very much
 
Hi.
in possible you could post jpeg or similar things
with relative table in pdf
without rar-zip etc
so we do first
Thank you very much
 
I can't tell you how much it costs you to merge just two pieces, so I don't randomly shoot you. I can tell you, however, that I would see the design of those carter...there is a moment of study on the encumbrances but positioning the lamellar valve in that way is far from profitable, it seems to me a little the conformation of a carter from minarelli am6 (type aprilia rs50) that it cannot be said that it is a performance engine.
Regardless of the use a better conformation (and adopted in its thousand variants from all "racing" engines) is with the package rotated towards the travase bag and not directed towards the crank chamber;)
 
You modeled it "the piece"? Don't take it, here we are old and sclerotic but, it's shaped a "key" ... would say the enzo friend. :-)
Why are the sections made with splines instead of normal arches and lines?
What are all those flex points in profiles?

When you go to apply the sforms on such a geometry you know that they will be pains (typically 1 is enough for details of this type).
it will be important, to indicate the areas subject to mechanical processing and to predict for these adequate overmetals.
 
hi simo and thanks for the answer, really interesting.... what models adopt a configuration similar to what you described?
 
Hi, you're actually right about the maths.... those you saw were the first sketches....
I attach a picture of the piece with the fittings and the sforms (the latter are the surfaces in pink and green, while the fittings are also distorted even if of grey colour); I shaped 2nd the inner walls, while on the outside I thought about something extra (5°)
 
hi simo and thanks for the answer,
which models adopt the solution you described?
Do you mean the lamellar package inserted directly into the cylinder towards the travases?

for my engine I do not expect to use that type of cylinders.... is voted for road use rather than race....
 

Attachments

vinnn said:
hi simo and thanks for the answer,
which models adopt the solution you described?
Do you mean the lamellar package inserted directly into the cylinder towards the travases?

for my engine I do not expect to use that type of cylinders.... is voted for road use rather than race....
Click to expand...
no, the suction in the cylinder, even with lamellar valve, is antiquated stuff. :wink: I'm talking about the orientation of the package in the carter, which should not point towards the crank chamber as far as the cylinder, towards the travase bag.
Moreover the area of the lamellar package must be properly connected with the travase bag itself. Finally, to me the conduit seems really too long.
ok that can be to use road and non-racing, but with that conformation of the carter you absolutely preclude according to my opinion the attainment of powers a minimum of relief.
 
maxopus said:
You modeled it "the piece"? Don't take it, here we are old and sclerotic but, it's shaped a "key" ... would say the enzo friend. :-)
Why are the sections made with splines instead of normal arches and lines?
What are all those flex points in profiles?

When you go to apply the sforms on such a geometry you know that they will be pains (typically 1 is enough for details of this type).
it will be important, to indicate the areas subject to mechanical processing and to predict for these adequate overmetals.
Click to expand...
Hello Max... .
Hello there
in fact you have to redesign it again
the design manufacture leaves some perplexity
apart from the splines the model was not drawn up having as a goal
final production of it by casting non-ferrous metals on the ground
if you put hand on the sforms go ohhhh asylum
allego l'jpeg to indicate the sez plan
It is necessary to assess whether it is possible to do the deforms to increase the geometry of the perimeter or whether it is necessary to make the deforms to decrease
But then there is the probation of the internal excavation
because I saw that there is a perimeter thickness of about 4 mm
if you put on it 3_4 mm of processing that area becomes with the continuation of the sforms 2.5-3 mm
to merge them but the equipment begins to have some complexity
we say that it would be better to redesign everything
put us the necessary overmetal
in economic terms I say to make a prototype on cn
then take the piece and work all to get the desired piece
embarking on the construction of a foundry equipment at this stage would have difficult to divert
even if reviewing the
after the phase of a prototype obtained by cn
I would opt for a shell for gravity fusion
Maybe it costs something more
But mergers would cost much less
guaranteeing a stability of tolerance
Thank you very much
 

Attachments

  • pr.webp
    pr.webp
    152.2 KB · Views: 36
Hello, thank you very much for the detailed answer....
at this point, premitting that I will put a heavy hand on mathematics, I don't know what way to undertake... .
I do not know in particular how the finished model should be presented:
I have to put it in the form of sforms, fittings, overmetals (what?) ;
or should I also provide the complete model of all processing (bearing chairs, sloping surfaces, etc.

in practice: how should the model be presented to the modeler who must implement the tool?

Sorry about the questions but it's my first experience in the field:redface:
 
vinnn said:
Hello, thank you very much for the detailed answer....
at this point, premitting that I will put a heavy hand on mathematics, I don't know what way to undertake... .
I do not know in particular how the finished model should be presented:
I have to put it in the form of sforms, fittings, overmetals (what?) ;
or should I also provide the complete model of all processing (bearing chairs, sloping surfaces, etc.

in practice: how should the model be presented to the modeler who must implement the tool?

Sorry about the questions but it's my first experience in the field:redface:
Click to expand...
Hi.
following the indication of the previous post
the plan of sez is already indicated
you understand (I don't know which piece it mates with)
if the perimeter can be "enlarged" through the sforms
or is bound to a perimeter geometry and then you have to do the corners of the leaf to decrease
for the corners of the sheet should not indicate how many 0° but how many mm you have bsogno so that the model can be removed from the sand without prob
we say that in this case also 1.5 mm of sform are good
and useless to tell you that in possible if you can have differentiated sforms
1.5 mm on h 40
1.5 mm h 20
the overmetal should be adjusted on 4-5 mm
for holes consider minimum holes 40 dia.
the rest fill the whole
if placed a table in jpeg in the various sez
I'll give you my advice
Thank you very much
 
therefore, the walls must have a minimum thickness (in mating area along the section plane) of 4mm;
There would be no problem with extending outwards (there are no constraints related to other perimeter geometries) and not even getting 1.5mm .

for the holes I will do as you say: I can only see the ones from 40mm in diameter, the rest octuro and do the next processing

4-5 mm of overmetal should be added to the ideal thickness for the wall? on both sides?

Thank you very much
 

Forum statistics

Threads
44,997
Messages
339,767
Members
4
Latest member
ibt

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 0 (members: 0, guests: 0)
ciao
Back
Top