Comparison between Sow Molds and Ingot Molds, covering shape, materials, functions, applications, replacement frequency, and other key differences:
| 1. Shape & Structural Design | ||
| Aspect | Sow Molds | Ingot Molds |
| Typical Shape | – Thick, block-like (trapezoidal or rectangular, 500–2,000 kg) | – Slender, standardized bars (“T” or trapezoidal, 20–25 kg) |
| – Rough surface, minimal internal features | – Smooth surface, precise dimensions | |
| Dimensions | – Example: 1.5m × 0.6m × 0.5m (for 1,000 kg ingots) | – Example: 0.8m × 0.15m × 0.1m (for 25 kg ingots) |
| Internal Design | – Reinforced for bulk strength (fewer ribs) | – Multiple ribs (to prevent warping) |
| – Simple interior surface | – Mold release slopes or grooves | |
| 2. Manufacturing Materials | ||
| Aspect | Sow Molds | Ingot Molds |
| Primary Materials | – Gray cast iron (HT250): Low cost, heat-resistant | – Gray cast iron (HT200): Lightweight |
| – Ductile iron (QT500-7): Superior thermal shock resistance | – Low-carbon steel (Q235B): For rapid cooling | |
| – High-chromium cast iron (Cr 15–20%) | – Nickel-plated variants (anti-stick) | |
| Material Properties | – High thermal conductivity | – Moderate thermal conductivity |
| – Carbon content: 3.0–3.5% (gray iron) | – Carbon content: 2.5–3.2% (gray iron) | |
| 3. Function & Applications | ||
| Aspect | Sow Molds | Ingot Molds |
| Primary Function | – Cast large aluminum blocks (“sows”) for remelting or rolling | – Produce standardized ingots for direct sale or machining |
| – Focus on slow cooling to preserve metal quality | – Prioritize rapid solidification and surface finish | |
| Applications | – Primary smelters (electrolytic aluminum) | – Downstream processing plants (e.g., extrusion, forging) |
| – Recycling plants (bulk scrap remelting) | – Commercial trade (standardized units) | |
| Cooling Method | – Natural cooling (4–8 hours) | – Forced cooling (water/air jets, 10–30 minutes) |
| – Insulation layers (e.g., ceramic blankets) | ||
| 4. Replacement Frequency & Maintenance | ||
| Aspect | Sow Molds | Ingot Molds |
| Service Life | – 300–500 pours (prone to thermal cracking) | – 1,000–1,500 pours (lightweight design) |
| – Repairable via welding | – Less frequent repairs | |
| Failure Modes | – Thermal fatigue cracks (interior surface) | – Surface oxidation peeling |
| – Warping (difficulty demolding) | – Dimensional inaccuracy due to wear | |
| Maintenance | – Inspect for cracks every 50 uses | – Clean slag every 100 uses |
| – Apply anti-stick coatings (e.g., graphite) | – Calibrate dimensions periodically | |
| 5. Industry Use Cases | ||
| 1) Sow Molds Example: | ||
| An electrolytic aluminum plant uses HT250 gray iron sow molds to cast 1,200 kg blocks for rolling mills. Molds are replaced every 6 months. | ||
| 2) Ingot Molds Example: | ||
| An extrusion factory employs Q235B steel ingot molds to produce 22.5 kg T-shaped ingots at 200 units/hour, with a mold lifespan of 2 years. | ||
| 6. Key Differences & Selection Guidelines | ||
| Factor | Sow Molds | Ingot Molds |
| Design Focus | Bulk casting, slow cooling, durability | Standardization, speed, surface quality |
| Ideal Scenario | Primary smelting or remelting | Downstream processing or trade |
| Cost Efficiency | Higher initial cost, saves remelting energy (~15%) | Lower cost, mass production efficiency (~30% faster packaging) |
| Recommendations: | ||
| 1) Use Sow Molds for intermediate products requiring remelting or rolling. | ||
| 2) Choose Ingot Molds for final products needing standardized shapes and fast turnover. | ||
This comparison highlights how material choices, design priorities, and operational needs drive the selection between these critical aluminum casting tools. If you want got more professional suggest, contact our designing engineer at Here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.