ADC12 vs A380 vs A360: Alloy Selection Guide

ADC12 and A380 are treated as interchangeable – they are not, quite. This guide compares the four aluminum die casting alloys that cover almost every application, with the chemistry, performance and supply-chain logic behind each choice.

Published: 2026-09-25 5 min read

Walk into any Asian die casting facility and the conversation is about ADC12. Walk into a North American one and it is all A380. Purchasing engineers routinely treat the two callouts as interchangeable on drawings, a reasonable simplification that hides measurable differences in fluidity, hot-tear resistance, machinability and corrosion behavior.

This guide compares the alloys properly, then extends the comparison to the two specialists (A360 and A413) that cover the applications the big two handle poorly.

1. Where Each Alloy Comes From

AlloyStandardRegional Dominance
ADC12JIS H 5302 (Japanese)Asia and global supply hubs
A380ASTM B85 / NADCA (North American)North America; widely specified by US OEMs
A360ASTM B85Corrosion-critical applications worldwide
A413ASTM B85Thin-wall, pressure-tight, cosmetic-critical parts

Both ADC12 and A380 are Al-Si-Cu alloys engineered for high-pressure die casting. The choice between them is largely a supply-chain decision (Asian foundries stock ADC12 ingots universally, while North American facilities default to A380) but the chemistry differences have real process consequences that matter at the margins.

2. Chemistry: The Devil Is in the Tolerances

ElementADC12 (JIS)A380 (ASTM)
Silicon (Si)9.6 – 12.0%7.5 – 9.5%
Copper (Cu)1.5 – 3.5%3.0 – 4.0%
Iron (Fe)≤1.3% (typically held 0.8–1.0%)≤1.3%
Zinc (Zn)≤1.0%≤3.0%
Magnesium (Mg)≤0.3%≤0.10%

Silicon is the fluidity element: it lowers melting point and lets molten metal navigate thin-walled sections without premature freezing. ADC12's higher silicon is why it fills complex geometry more reliably and resists hot tearing during rapid cooling.

Copper raises hardness and improves secondary machining characteristics, but it reduces natural corrosion resistance against harsh environments. A380's higher copper ceiling is part of why it machines with slightly better tool life, and part of why it is the wrong choice for coastal or chloride-exposed applications.

The recycling angle: A380's wider Cu and Zn ceilings tolerate a higher proportion of secondary (recycled) ingot in the melt charge, a real scrap-cost advantage that explains part of North America's historical preference. For programs requiring full traceability or corrosion-sensitive end use, the counter-move is to lock ADC12 or tighten the internal Cu control window rather than defaulting to the upper edge of the standard band.

3. Mechanical and Process Properties

MetricADC12A380
Tensile strength (UTS)240 – 310 MPa230 – 320 MPa
Yield strength140 – 170 MPa140 – 160 MPa
Elongation1 – 3.5%1 – 3.5%
Brinell hardness80 – 90 HB75 – 85 HB
Fluidity (spiral flow)Favorable (high Si)Moderate
Hot-tearing tendencyLowerModerate-to-higher
CNC tool wear10–15% faster (hard Si particles)Better tool life
Chip formation (CNC)Short, brittle chipsLong, continuous chips

One honest caveat that applies to both alloys: neither delivers high elongation as-cast. That is an industry-wide reality of high-pressure die casting, not a design flaw of either grade. For structural load-bearing parts, design around the brittleness rather than expecting a heat treatment to fix it, standard HPDC parts cannot be safely T6-treated, because trapped injection gases expand aggressively at high temperatures and blister the surface.

4. The Specialists: A360 and A413

A360, The Corrosion Resister

A360 carries negligible copper. That single change delivers exceptional corrosion resistance and high pressure tightness, the reason marine hardware, outdoor telecom infrastructure and coastal-market products specify it. Where ADC12 or A380 would suffer salt-fog degradation, A360 holds. If your product lives outdoors near salt water, this is the alloy conversation to have before the tool is cut.

A413, The Thin-Wall Cosmetic

A413 pushes silicon to its near-eutectic maximum. The result is flawless cosmetic finishes and virtually zero solidification shrinkage. Engineers specify it for thin-walled parts where internal porosity would be catastrophic, hydraulic cylinders and pressure-containing components are the classic cases. The trade-off is lower mechanical strength, so it is a specialist, not a generalist.

5. Surface Treatment Behavior

  • ADC12: its high silicon content makes conventional decorative anodizing produce uneven color and appearance. If a high-quality anodized finish is required, wrought aluminum (6061 and similar) is the better substrate, or plan on coating processes (powder coat, chromate conversion) instead of anodizing.
  • A380: responds slightly better to post-casting chemical surface treatments; its balanced formulation allows consistent chromate conversion coating and reliable powder coat adhesion.
  • Both: powder coating, wet painting, shot blasting, sand blasting, electroplating and chromate conversion are all standard and reliable.

6. Selection Logic

Your RequirementRecommended Alloy
Thin walls (<2.0 mm), complex geometry, high volumeADC12, fluidity and hot-tear resistance win
Asian supply chain, cost-sensitive volume productionADC12, universal ingot availability, ~5–10% material cost advantage
North American OEM drawing calloutA380, matching the spec avoids costly requalification
Maximum mechanical strength, thick sectionsA380, higher Cu ceiling, more predictable shrinkage in heavy sections
Marine, coastal, outdoor corrosive exposureA360, low copper, superior corrosion resistance
Thin-wall pressure-tight, cosmetic-criticalA413, near-zero shrinkage, excellent finish
Decorative anodizing requiredNone of the above, specify wrought 6061 or a coating process

7. The Practical Answer

For most projects, ADC12 and A380 are functionally interchangeable, and the decision comes down to supply chain: manufacturing in Asia with thin-wall or complex geometry points to ADC12; supplying a North American OEM with a drawing callout points to A380. Switching between them rarely requires tooling changes, the shrinkage rates are nearly identical.

Where the choice genuinely matters is at the edges: corrosive environments (A360), thin-wall pressure boundaries (A413), and any part specified for decorative anodizing (neither, rethink the finish). Those decisions are cheap before the tool is cut and expensive after. If your part sits at one of those edges, flag it in the RFQ rather than assuming the default alloy will do.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can I substitute ADC12 for A380 without changing the mold?
Yes, in most cases. The two alloys have nearly identical thermal shrinkage rates, so a foundry can typically run ADC12 in an existing A380 mold without modifying cavity dimensions or draft angles. What changes is the supply chain and some process behavior: ADC12 has higher silicon (better fluidity, more hot-tear resistance) while A380 has higher copper (slightly higher strength, better response to some surface treatments). Confirm the substitution against any customer-specified alloy callout on the drawing.
2. What is the main difference between ADC12 and A380?
Chemistry. ADC12 (JIS H5302) carries 9.6–12.0% silicon and 1.5–3.5% copper; A380 (ASTM B85) carries 7.5–9.5% silicon and 3.0–4.0% copper. The higher silicon in ADC12 improves molten fluidity – it fills thin walls and complex geometries more reliably and resists hot tearing during rapid cooling. The higher copper in A380 gives slightly higher strength but reduces natural corrosion resistance.
3. Which alloy is better for thin-wall parts?
ADC12. Its higher silicon content lowers viscosity and improves mold filling, so thin-wall sections (below 2.0 mm) and complex flow channels fill more reliably with fewer end-of-fill defects. Production data on large thin-wall parts such as battery trays shows ADC12 configurations producing materially fewer end-of-fill defects than equivalent A380 tooling.
4. Is A380 stronger than ADC12?
Marginally, and it depends on the property. Tensile strength overlaps heavily (ADC12 roughly 240–310 MPa, A380 roughly 230–320 MPa) and yield strength is comparable (140–170 vs 140–160 MPa). Neither alloy delivers high elongation as-cast – that is an industry-wide reality of high-pressure die casting, not a defect of either grade. Neither is a first choice for structural load-bearing applications without design consideration of the brittleness.
5. When should I choose A360 instead of ADC12 or A380?
A360 has negligible copper, which delivers exceptional corrosion resistance and high pressure tightness. Specify it for marine hardware, outdoor telecom infrastructure, coastal-market products, and any application exposed to salt fog or harsh environments where ADC12/A380 copper content would degrade corrosion performance.
6. What is A413 used for?
A413 takes silicon to its near-eutectic maximum. The result is excellent fluidity, flawless cosmetic finish, and virtually zero solidification shrinkage. Engineers specify it for thin-walled parts where internal porosity would cause failures – hydraulic cylinders and pressure-containing components are the classic examples.
7. Can standard die castings be T6 heat treated?
Not safely. Standard high-pressure die castings entrap some gas during filling; at T6 temperatures that trapped gas expands aggressively, causing severe surface blistering and part deformation. Heat treatment of die castings requires specialized vacuum or controlled-atmosphere processes; for standard HPDC parts, specify the alloy and as-cast properties instead of planning a T6 upgrade.
8. Why does machinability differ between ADC12 and A380?
ADC12 contains hard silicon particles that accelerate tool wear roughly 10–15% during secondary CNC machining, and it produces short, brittle chips. A380 machines with longer, continuous chips that need chip-breaking strategies but gives slightly better tool life. Both achieve Ra 1.6 μm or better surface finish with correct parameters – the difference shows up in tool cost and cycle planning, not in achievable quality.

Not Sure Which Process Fits Your Part?

Send us your drawings. Our engineers will recommend the most cost-effective route: die casting, injection molding, or CNC machining.

Free Consultation