Design 5 showed the lowest tendency towards casting defects, yet lead to a reduced yield. This would not only be unecological, but also cause an avoidable financial loss to the foundry. Taking into account the various demands on casting and production, design 4 turned out to be the best compromise for the product (highlighted light blue line in Figure 6, right).
The ratio between porosity and yield was optimal. Prototypes confirmed the simulation results, also in comparison with “worse” designs (Fig. 7): Only design 4 was considered for production. It was possible to completely eliminate the original defect in series production: The shrinkage porosity in the area investigated disappeared.