Metal Casting Design & Purchasing breaks down the U.S. metalcasting industry by material, process and state.

MCDP Staff Report

(Click here to see the story as it appears in January/February 2014's Metal Casting Design & Purchasing.)

For the fourth year, Metal Casting Design & Purchasing offers a snapshot of the U.S. metalcasting industry. The data was compiled from a survey of 1,691 domestic metalcasting facilities, 85% of the estimated total 1,978 plants. 

Following is a breakdown of the survey results. The percent of responses reflects the number of surveyed facilities that responded to each question. Averages were found by eliminating the highest and lowest numbers in each category and dividing the sum by the number of responses. 

Casting Material

Leader: Aluminum

Last Place: Titanium

Aluminum is the dominant material, with 788 facilities (46.6% of respondents) pouring some type of aluminum alloy. The percentage of aluminum casting facilities is nearly the same as last year (747 of 1,601 respondents). While most facilities report pouring more than one material, no other metal comes close to aluminum’s share. However, when it comes to volume, aluminum comes in third after ductile and gray iron (see chart on p. 28).

Iron is the second most used material, with 29.9% of metalcasting facilities pouring the metal. Sixty-three facilities (3.7%) reported pouring aluminum, iron and steel, and 119 facilities (7%) pour both aluminum and iron. Titanium remains in last place, with only 21 facilities casting it. 

Metal Casting Process

Leader: Green Sand/Horizontally Parted

Last Place: V-Process 

Horizontally parted green sand molding is the perennial favorite process, with 652 of the 1,691 facilities (or 38.6%) using it, a slight increase in facilities and decrease in percentage compared to 2012. Its vertically parted counterpart, which often is used for higher volumes, is found in only 12.5% of facilities. The nobake process comes in at a close second with 600 facilities, or 35.5%. 

Many facilities report using multiple processes. One hundred twenty facilities use both the green sand and permanent mold processes (8%), and 434 facilities use the green sand and nobake processes (25.7%). Seven facilities reported using the V-process, a casting method with a vacuum holding unbonded sand in a mold during pouring.

Metalcasting Plants Per State

Leader: Ohio

Last Place: Alaska (Note: some states have no participating facilities.)

Ohio leads the industry in number of metalcasting facilities reported, with 159 (or 9.4% of the total facilities in the U.S.). California added nine new plants in the past year for a total of 133, which edged Pennsylvania by one for the runner-up spot. Wisconsin ranked fourth with 125 facilities, while Michigan and Illinois rounded out the states reporting more than 100 facilities, with 119 and 116, respectively.

Alaska has one metalcaster participating in our research, as does the District of Columbia.

The other states with fewer than 10 facilities reported are Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, West Virginia, Vermont and Wyoming. Delaware, Hawaii and North Dakota did not have any participating metalcasting facilities. 

Value-Added Services

Leader: Finish Machining

Last Place: Coating

Of the 1,691 facilities that participated in the U.S. census, 1,188 (70.3%) reported offering at least one value-added service. Machining was the most popular service, with 912 facilities (53.9% of all responses; 76.8% of facilities with value-added operations) offering finish machining capabilities and 903 offering rough machining (53.4%; 76%). Heat treatment, patternmaking and engineering & design all totaled more than 700 responses.

The vast majority of facilities offering value-added services reported multiple methods, with 1,108 of 1,188 (93.3%) offering at least two and 1,052 (88.6%) having at least three. Prototyping (266) and coating (204) were the least popular services.

Coremaking Methods

Leader: Shell

Last Place: Cast-in Inserts 

A little more than half of the participating facilities (895) reported using some method of coremaking. Shell and air-set/nobake coremaking were the top two responses, with 602 and 567 facilities reportedly using the methods, respectively. The least popular methods were ceramic cores (97 facilities) and cast-in inserts (27).Nearly 80% of responding facilities use more than one method for coremaking, with just 187 locations using just a single method. The combination of shell and air-set/nobake was the most common tandem, with 407 facilities reportedly using both methods, while 348 responses included both shell and green sand methods. ■