INCLUSION MEASUREMENT AND IDENTIFICATION IN Mg-BASED ALLOYS:

APPLICATION OF THE BRIGHTIMETER TECHNIQUE

M. Paradis, A. M. Samuel, and F. H. Samuel

Département des Sciences Appliquées, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi, QC, Canada

H. W. Doty
Materials Engineering, General Motors, Pontiac, MI, USA

Copyright Ó 2017 American Foundry Society

DOI 10.1007/s40962-016-0130-7

Abstract
The present investigations were carried out on experi-
mentally prepared AM50A and AZ91D alloys. The main
thrust was the application of the Brightimeter technique in
quantifying the concentration of the inclusions in these
alloys. The results show that the Brightimeter indices are
low when the amount of oxides, i.e., MgO, Al2O3, Al2MgO4
is high. Reducing the oxide concentration increases the
Brightimeter readings (indices). It is concluded that the
Brightimeter apparatus is an effective technique in deter-
mining the metal cleanliness in terms of detecting and
measuring the inclusion content. Its sensitivity increases
with the increase in the amount of inclusions. At low levels
of inclusion concentration, there is a noticeable fluctuation
in readings of the Brightimeter. The main parameter to be
considered is the melting and solidification process. It is
recommended that the Brightimeter readings (indices)
should be coupled with metallographic examination. The
main inclusions are magnesium oxides (MgO), magnesium
hydroxides (Mg(OH)x), aluminum oxides (Al2O3), spinel (a
mixture of MgO ? Al2O3). In some cases, pure metals such
as iron (Fe) and aluminum (Al) were also observed along
with their oxides, i.e., FeO and Fe2O3. The use of flux as a
protective agent may cause the presence of other types of
inclusions such as K, Na and Ca. The quantity of oxides
depends to a large extent on the inclusions initially present
in the as-received alloy. Recycled alloys were found to
contain the maximum amount of inclusions.
Keywords: magnesium alloys, inclusion measurements,
Brightimeter technique, metallography, microstructure

Introduction method is based on wet chemistry procedures and is

Sin et al.1 made a thorough review of the inclusions in Mg
and Mg alloys. The authors concluded that the majority of
inclusion-related issues with Mg alloys appear to originate
with the molten Mg being exposed to moisture or oxygen.
This is an issue during melting, melt transfer before
pouring, and mold filling. There is a need to determine the
Mg melt quality at all stages of the casting process. Better
understanding of the behavior of oxide films (in particular
bi-films) within the molten metal would help determine the
best foundry practices to reduce their formation and
entrapment in Mg melts.
A new method named ‘‘MagOxide’’ aiming at evaluating
the MgO and Al–Mn–Fe intermetallics in magnesium
alloys was developed by Bronfin and Moscovitch.2 This
compatible with the fast neutron activation analysis
(FNAA) technique. The method was successfully imple-
mented on a variety of primary and recycled Mg alloys.
The present paper aims at presenting the systematic cor-
relation results obtained by the FNAA and MagOxide
methods when primary and recycled Mg alloys of AZ and
AM series were analyzed.
Hu and Luo3 and Lessiter and Rasmussen4 reviewed the
inclusions present in molten magnesium and potential
assessment techniques for their measurement. The authors
concluded that none of the techniques available/investi-
gated thus far were well suited for use in molten magne-
sium. It appears that vacuum and pressure filtration
techniques are more suitable for adaptation to molten Mg
for small- to medium-sized Mg foundries with limited

International Journal of Metalcasting

 Figure 1. (a) Schematic diagram of the Brightimeter apparatus.6 (b) Schematic diagram of the mold for casting the
Brightimeter sample.6 (c) Casting used for inclusion measurements. (d) Metallic mold casting for preparation of
the Brightimeter samples.

Table 1. Chemical Composition of the Experimental Mg– smaller Fe-based intermetallic inclusions. Whereas ZE41A
Al–Zn Alloys Used in the Present Study alloy was susceptible to many small inclusions, AZ91D
Alloy code Mg% Al% Zn% Mn% alloy was more susceptible to few large inclusions. The
film-type inclusions for ZE41A would tend not to
AM50A 95.56 4.00 0.44 0.13 agglomerate and are reasoned to be not as harmful as the
AZ91D 90.00 9.00 1.00 0.26 agglomerated and faceted particle-type inclusions with
large surface area observed in the AZ91D alloy.

manpower. Elsayed et al.5 studied inclusions in permanent
mold cast magnesium ZE41A and AZ91D alloys. Their
results show that the fracture surfaces of the ZE41A alloy
contained film-type Mg–O-based inclusions, whose poor
interface with the matrix was likely the source of fracture.
The AZ91D alloy fracture surfaces contained mostly par-
ticle-type Mg–Al–O spinel inclusions, as well as few
Haerle6 proposed a simple technique to measure and
quantify the amount of inclusions in Mg-based alloys. The
principal idea of this technique is that the incident light on
any metallic surface is reflected, absorbed or diffracted by
the surface of the metallic object. The instrument used by
Haerle is registered under the commercial name Techni-
dyne BrightimeterTM, model A4M. Figure 1a is a

International Journal of Metalcasting

 schematic of the proposed apparatus, Figure 1b and 1c
shows the mold required to produce the sample for inclu-
sion analysis and an example of the fractured sample.

Commercially speaking, the AZ91D alloy is very popular in

the magnesium industry due its high mechanical and physical
properties in addition to its excellent castability. On the other
hand, the AM50A alloy is characterized by its high ductility
compared to that offered by the AZ91D alloy.7–9 Grebetz
et al.10,11 and Oymo et al.12 studied the different types of oxide
films in Mg alloys. The authors classified the oxides as being
either ‘‘lacy’’ type (continuous films) or ‘‘snaky’’ type (inter-
cepted thick films). The presence of porosity in the examined
alloy samples would significantly affect the Brightimeter
readings if the porosity was mixed/combined with the oxide
films. Kimura et al.13 concluded that if recycled Mg alloys are
used instead of virgin materials, the energy consumed is only
about 4% of that used to obtain Mg from seawater or ore,
because pre-processing is not required. It is expected in the
near future that there will be a method to remove the non-
metallic inclusions from the recycled alloys.14
Figure 2. Set-up for melting and casting of Mg alloys.
The present study was therefore carried out to investigate
the capacity of the Brightimeter technique in assessing and
measuring the inclusions found in these two alloys.

Experimental Procedure

Table 1 shows the chemical composition of experimental alloys

used in the present study. Pure Mg, Al, and Zn were used as base
metals. Manganese was added in the form of Al–25%Mn master
alloy. Melting was carried out in a mild steel crucible of 25-kg
capacity. The crucible was placed in an electrical resistance
furnace. The surface of the molten alloys was protected from
oxidation using a special gas (i.e., a mixture of dry air [78% N2
and 22% O2], CO2 and SF6) as shown in Figure 2.

The liquid alloy was maintained at 700 °C prior to casting

Figure 3. Brightimeter apparatus. in a metallic mold preheated at 200 °C—see Figure 1d.

Figure 4. (a) Distribution of the Brightimeter readings in 100% fresh alloy. (b) Distribution of the Brightimeter
readings in 100% recycled alloy.

International Journal of Metalcasting

The casting was mainly used for microstructural charac-
terization as well as chemical analysis. Figure 3 shows the
Brightimeter apparatus used in the present study. For each
alloy, 15 samples were prepared using either 100% fresh
alloy or a mixture of fresh and recycled alloys to vary the
amount of inclusions. The fractured surface, Figure 1c, was
placed on top of the machine and rotated 10 times, at
intervals of 36 degrees each and the reading obtained at
each position. The average of the ten readings was con-
sidered in analyzing the data. It should be mentioned here
that higher readings/values indicate cleaner melts.
Since the grain size could be an important factor, metallo-
graphic samples from the cast alloys were also prepared. The
polished surfaces were etched in a solution composed of
80 ml water, 10 ml ethanol, 10 ml acetic acid and 3 g of
citric acid. The samples were etched for 10–30 s followed by
thorough washing prior to grain-size measurements. The
microstructures were examined by means of a Leica DM LM
optical microscope. The grain-size measurements were
carried out using an optical microscope with image analysis
software. The grain size (represented by the average grain
length, lm) was obtained from the average of 200 mea-
surements taken over 20 fields (10 measurements per field) at
1009 magnification for each alloy sample. Phase identifi-
cation was carried out using an electron probe microanalyzer
(EPMA) in conjunction with energy-dispersive X-ray anal-
ysis (EDX) and wavelength-dispersive spectroscopic anal-
ysis (WDS) where required, integrating a combined JEOL
JXA-8900l WD/ED microanalyzer operating at 20 kV and
30 nA, where the size of the spot examined was *2 lm.
Figure 5. (a) Distribution of the Brightimeter indices in 100% fresh AZ91D alloy. (b) Distribution of the
Brightimeter indices in 100% recycled AZ91D alloy. Arrows indicate the possibility of large chunks of oxides.
Results and Discussion
Brightimeter Measurements
In the present study, the term ‘‘dross’’ indicates that the
molten metal was poured without skimming the surface. At
certain instants, the protective gas was shut down in the
melting crucible as well as in the casting mold during
sampling, in order to vary the amount of oxides. Another
way to vary the amount of inclusions is through the use of
mechanical stirring for 60 s using a mild steel impeller
rotating at 120 rpm—Figure 2.
Figure 4a shows the distribution of the Brightimeter
cleanliness index as a function of the sampling procedure
obtained from the experimental AM50A alloy. It is evident
that since the molten metal was 100% fresh and was under
dynamic gas protection, the variation in the Brightimeter
readings is more or less stable around 47 regardless of the
source of the examined sample. In the case of using 100%
recycled AM50A alloy, Figure 4b, with the variation in the
amount of oxides in the liquid metal, the distribution of
Brightimeter indices is divided into three parts: the dross
with no gas showing severe fluctuation between 20 and 40
(average around 27), dross with protecting gas where the
fluctuation in the readings is lesser than in the previous
case, with an average around 37. In the case of vigorously
stirred metal, the average is about 22, regardless of the
protection of the melt surface, i.e., with or without pro-
tecting gas. The experimental AZ91D exhibited similar
results as the AM50A alloy, as shown in Figure 5a. Due to
International Journal of Metalcasting
the presence of a large amount of aluminum in this alloy
(approximately 9%), it is expected that the amount of
oxides in the AZ91D alloy should be more than that
reported for the AM50A alloy, as is evident from the sig-
nificant fluctuation in the Brightimeter readings (between
32 and 53) as shown in Figure 5a. The fluctuation in the
Brightimeter readings became more severe when scrap
from the AZ91D was melted and used for casting, as
illustrated in Figure 5b, where values as low as 18 were
frequently reported especially when the alloy melt was
mechanically stirred (arrowed).
Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between the percentage
of inclusions measured by the image analyzer system and

Figure 6. Percentage of inclusions-Brightimeter index relationship in: (a) AM50A alloy, (b) AZ91D alloy.

25
Dirty
25 fields 100 fields 200 field
20
% Inclusions

15

10

5
Clean

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Sample #

Figure 7. Dependence of the percentage of inclusions

value obtained based on the number of fields measured Figure 8. Effect of alloy composition on the Brightimeter
for the samples examined. index values obtained.

Figure 9. Backscattered electron images of: (a) AM50A alloy and (b) AZ91D alloy.

International Journal of Metalcasting

 (a) (b)
140 56
1 2 140 56
130 54
130 54

Average grain size (µm)

52
Average grain size (µm)
120 52
120

Brightimeter index
50

Brightimeter index
110 50
110
48 48
100 100
46 46
90 90
44 44
80 80
42 42
70 40 70 40
60 38 60 38
50 36 50 36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Samples # Samples #

Figure 10. Average grain-size-Brightimeter index relationships in: (a) AM50A alloy and (b) AZ91D
alloy. Note #1 is grain size, and #2 is Brightimeter Index.

Figure 11. Optical micrographs showing examples of the types of oxide films
observed in the AM50A alloy: (a) snaky type oxides, (b) long oxides and AZ91D
alloy, (c, d) mixtures of porosity (arrowed a) and oxide films (arrowed b).

the corresponding Brightimeter readings. In the case of the AZ91D alloy, Figure 6b, the relation between the results
AM50A alloy, the percentage of inclusions obtained for the from the two methods of measurements is linear rather than
various samples examined is spread over a wide range. parabolic. However, it should be noted that for both
Two mathematical correlations were applied, linear and regression methods, the fitting coefficient is \0.8.
parabolic. It is clear from Figure 6a that the relationship
between the two methods is parabolic rather than linear, Another parameter to be considered in using the image
due to the presence of large amounts of oxide films of analyzer system is the number of measured fields. In the
different sizes caused by the increase in the aluminum case of highly contaminated (dirty) alloys, an examination
content. These results are in good agreement with the of at least 200 fields at 1009 are required to obtain a
findings reported by Grebetz et al.10,11 Considering the reliable value, which may not be necessary in the case of

International Journal of Metalcasting

 Figure 12. Element distribution in an inclusion in the experimental AM50A alloy.

International Journal of Metalcasting

Table 2. WDS Analysis of the Salt Particle in Figure 12
AM50A wt% at.%
O 32.3 60.7
K 6.7 5.1
Mn 6.4 3.5
Ti 25.9 16.3
Fe 25.5 13.8
Total 97.4 100.0
clean metal. In the present study, all reported values were
obtained by examining 200 fields in each case/sample.
Figure 7 shows how the percentage of inclusions observed
in a particular sample can vary, depending on the number
of fields measured.
One of the main concerns in the use of the Brightimeter
technique is the role of the alloy composition on the surface
brightness of the alloy sample. The variation in the Al and Zn
content changes the gray level of the Mg–Zn–Al phase and
hence the Brightimeter index for the level of inclusions. This
observation is well illustrated in Figure 8 which shows the
Brightimeter index values for 100 samples covering 5 levels
of Al content. It is evident from this figure that most of the
points are segregated around an index value of 55—see
circled area. At a low level of aluminum, the fractured sur-
face is bright, resulting in the high index values observed. As
for alloys containing 14% Al, the fractured surface is rather
gray which is reflected in the corresponding Brightimeter
readings. Figure 9 shows the size and distribution of the Mg–
Zn–Al phase particles observed in the AM50A and AZ91D
alloys. Since the AM50A alloy has less Al content and
Figure 13. EDS spectrum corresponding to the backscattered image in Figure 12a.
therefore less Mg–Al–Zn phases, it appears brighter and
higher on the Brightimeter index.
Figure 10 illustrates the effect of the grain size on the
Brightimeter readings. As may be seen, the grain size has
no specific role in controlling the Brightimeter index value.
In the event that the grain size is large—which may affect
the reflecting light beam, with rotation of the sample every
36 degrees, this effect becomes negligible.
Types of Inclusions
Optical Microscopy
In order to arrive at a better understanding of the rela-
tionship between the amount of inclusions and the corre-
sponding Brightimeter indices, metallographic samples
were prepared from both ‘‘clean’’ and ‘‘dirty’’ samples.
Figure 11a and 11b shows examples of the oxide films
observed in the two alloys termed ‘‘clean’’—Brightimeter
indices around 52–58. Figure 11c and 11d reveals a mix-
ture of porosity and massive oxide films in samples termed
‘‘dirty’’—Brightimeter indices around 32–35.
Electron Probe Microanalyzer
AM50A Alloy
All electron micrographs presented in this section were
taken from ‘‘dross’’ samples with Brightimeter indices in
the range of 27–35. During the fabrication process of pure
Mg, certain amounts of salt may be trapped in the liquid
metal and remains after solidification. Figure 12 shows an
International Journal of Metalcasting
 Figure 14. Element distribution in Fe oxides—note the difference in the Fe intensity in both areas.

Table 3. WDS Analysis of Phase Marked 1 (a), Marked 2 oxides. Taking into consideration that the crucible used for
(b), Marked 3 (c) in Figure 14 melting is made of mild steel, thus a piece of Fe may have
fallen in the liquid metal prior to pouring in the metallic
AM50A wt% at.% mold.Figure 13 shows the EDS spectrum corresponding to
(a) the backscattered image in Figure 12a. Figure 14 illustrates
an example of Fe-based oxides observed in the
O 24.3 53.2
generic AM50A alloy. The WDS analysis listed in
Fe 73.9 46.4 Table 3a–c identifies these oxides as FeO, Fe2O3 and Fe,
Total 98.6 100.0 respectively.
(b)
O 25.2 57.6 Magnesium has a higher affinity to react with oxygen than
Fe 60.8 39.8 aluminum as shown in Figure 15.15 Figure 16 is a good
Total 88.2 100.0
example illustrating this statement. Table 4a shows the
chemical analysis of area marked A. The WDS analysis of
(c)
area ‘‘B’’ in Figure 16 is shown in Table 4b which is
O 0.7 2.4 mainly MgO-Al2O3 (spinel). The absence of Al in area
Fe 98.3 97.0 ‘‘C’’ in Figure 16 indicates that the composition of this
Total 99.3 100.0 phase is only MgO. The associated WDS analysis pre-
sented in Table 4c reveals that the total weight percentage
of the elements in this phase is less than 100%. Thus, it
example of a salt particle observed in the experimental may be reasonable to assume that the chemical composi-
AM50A alloy, whereas Table 2 lists its chemical compo- tion of this phase is rather Mg(OH).
sition revealing a mixture of oxides, including Fe-based

International Journal of Metalcasting

 Figure 15. Ellingham diagram for several metals giving the free energy of formation
of metal oxides and the corresponding oxygen partial pressure at equilibrium.15
Figure 17 displays a mixture of oxides in the AM50A
alloy. The backscattered image is divided into four areas
according to their gray level. The presence of Mg and O
only indicates that areas A and D are MgO. The black area
marked ‘‘B’’ is a pore as evidenced from the absence of any
element, whereas the matrix (marked C) is mainly Mg.
Figure 18 displays the presence of a shrinkage network.
The colored map reveals high oxygen and magnesium
intensities within these cavities. Also, their surfaces are
rough compared to the surrounding Mg matrix.
AZ91D Alloy
Figure 19 demonstrates the distribution of the elements in a
group of MgO bi-films observed in the experimental AZ91D
alloy. Both Al and Zn show more or less similar intensity.
Figure 20 shows that MgO can as well precipitate in the form
of bulky or massive areas almost 200 lm wide and 1000 lm
long. It should be mentioned here that no vigorous
mechanical stirring was applied at any stage of the work.
Also, the molten metal was kept under dynamic protective
gas during the melting and solidification processes.
Figure 21 reveals the presence of a massive ‘‘chunk’’ of
oxides in the dross. The colored map shows that the area
marked ‘‘A’’ contains Al, Mg and O2 which indicates that it
is spinel (Al2MgO4).16 Area B contains only Mg and O2
giving rise to the formation of MgO. Area marked ‘‘C’’
contains Ca, O2 and Al makes it possibly CaO
Al2O3.
Figure 22 shows the presence of some amount of Ca
compounds. Since Ca was never introduced during the
melting process, thus the only source is the flux used for the
production of the Mg used in the study. Calcium by itself
may be from the primary magnesium production method.
KCl, on the other hand, is from flux contamination (i.e.,
improper settling prior to transfer from the refining process
to the casting process).
International Journal of Metalcasting
 Figure 16. Element distribution in oxide film observed in the AM50A alloy.

Table 4. WDS Analysis of Areas Marked ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’ and ‘‘C’’ Summary
in Figure 16
The fluctuation in the Brightimeter index values is low
AM50A wt% at.% when highly contaminated samples are used. With the
(a)
increase in the sample level of cleanliness, the scatter in the
Brightimeter readings is relatively high. All alloys behave
O 2.5 4.7
in the same manner and may be divided into two cate-
Mg 1.7 1.8 gories, corresponding to clean and dirty melts. The
Al 96.6 93.5 microstructure and hence the gray level of the reflecting
Total 101.7 100 sample surface is an important parameter to consider when
(b) using the Brightimeter technique. Thus, a metallographic
O 19.9 27.4 study should be carried out simultaneously to support the
former. The Brightimeter technique is insensitive to the
Mg 67.7 61.3
presence of porosity when the latter is mixed with oxide
Al 12.4 10.1
films. Grain size, as such, has no specific bearing on the
Total 102.0 100.0 Brightimeter readings.
(c)
O 59.0 70.7 The principal inclusions existing in fresh (i.e., un-recycled)
Mg 36.9 29.1 alloys are MgO and Mg(OH), Al2O3 or a regrouping of
Total 96.3 100.0 oxides such as Al2O3
MgO. In some cases, metal oxides
(FeO, Fe2O3) may form from either the steel crucible or

International Journal of Metalcasting

Figure 17. Element distribution in magnesium oxides.

International Journal of Metalcasting

 Figure 18. Element distribution in shrinkage cavities.

International Journal of Metalcasting

Figure 19. Element distribution of oxide bi-films.

International Journal of Metalcasting

 Figure 20. Element distribution in bulky (massive) oxide.

International Journal of Metalcasting

Figure 21. Element distribution in spinels in the dross.

International Journal of Metalcasting

 Figure 22. Element distribution in the flux in the dross.

International Journal of Metalcasting

metallic tools. Salt particles (K, Na, Ca) from the flux used
in the production of the pure Mg may be observed.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Carlton Fuerst,
Chief Scientist, General Motors Canada, for suggesting
the topic of this study. The authors would also like to
thank Amal Samuel for enhancing the quality of the
images presented in the present article.
REFERENCES
1. S.L. Sin, A. Elsayed, C. Ravindran, Inclusions in
Magnesium and Its Alloys: A Review. Int. Mater. Rev.
58(7), 419–436 (2013)
2. B. Bronfin, N. Moscovitch, New Magnesium Alloys
for Transmission Parts. Metal Sci. Heat Treat. 48,
479–486 (2006)
3. H. Hu, A. Luo, Inclusions in Molten Magnesium and
Potential Assessment Techniques. JOM 48, 47–51
(1996)
4. M.J. Lessiter, W.M. Rasmussen, ‘‘To Pour or Not to
Pour; The Dilemma of Assessing Your Aluminum
Melt’s Cleanliness’’, Mod. Cast., février, pp. 45–48
(1996)
5. A. Elsayed, E. Vandersluis, S. Lun Sin, C. Ravindran,
‘‘Inclusions in Permanent Mold Cast Magnesium
ZE41A and AZ91D alloys’’, Int. J. Metalcast., pub-
lished on line, 07 December 2016
6. A.G. Haerle, R.W. Murray, W.E. Mercer II, B.A.
Mikucki, A New Technique for Quantifying Non-
metallic Inclusion Content in Magnesium. Light Metal
Age 54, 1–10 (1996)
7. S. Housh, B. Mikucki, A. Stevenson, ‘‘Selection and
Application of Magnesium and Magnesium Alloys’’,
in ASM Handbook, vol. 2—Properties and Selection:
Nonferrous Alloys and Special-Purpose Materials,
ASM International, Material Park, pp. 445–479 (1990)
8. Standard Specification for Magnesium Alloys in Ingot
Form for Sand Castings, Permanent Mold Castings and
Die Castings, ASTM B93/B93M-94B, Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, Vol. 02, American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1995
9. A. Stevenson, Melting the Aerospace Challenge with
Magnesium Casting Alloys, in Light Metals 1987, ed.
by R.D. Zabreznik (The Minerals, Metals & Materials
Society, Warrendale, 1987), pp. 861–870
10. J.M. Tartaglia, J.C. Grebetz, Observations of Inter-
metallic Particle and Inclusion Distributions in Mag-
nesium Alloys, in Magnesium Technology 2000, ed. by
H.I. Kaplan, J. Hryn, B. Clow (The Minerals, Metals &
Materials Society, Warrendale, 2000), pp. 113–121
11. J.C. Grebetz, Day, A.G. Haerle, ‘‘Qualification of
Recycled Magnesium Type 1 Die Casting’’, 55th IMA
Annual World Magnesium Conference, Coronado,
CA, pp. 8–15 (May 1998)
12. D. Oymo, D.O. Karlsen, P.M.D. Pinfold, T. Mellerud,
O. Lie, Particle Removal in Pure Magnesium, in Light
Metals 1994, ed. by U. Mannwieler (The Minerals,
Metals and Materials Society, Warrendale, 1994),
pp. 1017–1024
13. K. Kimura, K. Nishii, M. Kawarada, Recycling Mag-
nesium Alloy Housing for Notebook Computers. Fuj-
tisu Sci. Tech. J. 38, 102–111 (2002)
14. R.P. Jacques, R. DasGupta, A.G. Haerle, ‘‘Evaluation
of Recycled AZ91D Magnesium Alloy for Steering
Column Components’’, SAE Technical Paper No.
970332, SAE Transactions, vol. 106, pp. 327–334
(1997)
15. H.J.T. Ellingham, Transactions and Communications.
J. Soc. Chem. Ind. 63, 125 (1944)
16. P. Bakke, D.O. Karlsen, ‘‘Inclusion Assessment in
Magnesium and Magnesium Base Alloys’’, Charac-
teristics and Applications of Magnesium in Automo-
tive Design (SP-1250), SAE Technical Paper No.
970330, pp. 61–73 (1997)
International Journal of Metalcasting