Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
It is well known that the mechanical properties of ductile cast iron (DCI ) depend on its microstructure, and that the
microstructure depends on the properties of the melt and the cooling conditions during casting. There have been
many studies of the individual elements of the process of casting DCI, but as yet there have been very few examples
of modelling the entire process to predict cooling rates, microstructure, and mechanical properties, particularly for
large castings. The present paper describes a method of modelling the microstructural and mechanical properties of
ferritic DCI, and applies the methods to the case of a large (13 t) thick walled (300 mm thickness) casting. The
microstructure calculated includes nodule count, nodularity, ferrite grain size, and percentage ferrite. The mechan-
ical properties calculated include yield stress, tensile strength, elongation, and static upper shelf fracture toughness
(J and K ). The calculated results compare well with those of a test casting. MST/4243
1C JC
T he author is with Ove Arup and Partners, 13 Fitzroy Street, L ondon W 1P 6BQ, UK, and is currently seconded to the Japan
Research Institute, 16 Ichibancho, Chiyoda-ku, T okyo 102, Japan. He can be contacted by email at pat.donelan@arup.com.
Manuscript received 30 October 1998; accepted 29 October 1999.
` 2000 IoM Communications L td.
ISSN 0267–0836 Materials Science and Technology March 2000 Vol. 16 261
262 Donelan Modelling properties of ferritic ductile cast iron
Nodules/mm2
Calculation of microstructural and mechanical
properties
A lot of research has been carried out in this area, however
by virtue of its complexity practical application to real
foundry problems is less developed. Good reviews of the
state of the art in this area can be found in Refs. 11 and 12.
Application to industrial castings is still relatively scarce,
but examples can be found in Refs. 13 and 14. These
examples are small automotive DCI castings. The mechan-
ical properties calculated were hardness and yield stress,
and the results were presented as contour diagrams.
Reasonable agreement between analysis and test results
Cooling Rate at Eutectic Temperature, K min_1
was obtained.
Work published to date has been limited in a number of 1 Relationship between cooling rate at eutectic
important ways including temperature and nodule count
(i) the castings have all been relatively thin walled. For
a thick walled DCI casting, phenomena such as NODULE GROWTH
fading and loss of nodularity owing to the longer During solidification the graphite nodule becomes sur-
solidification time become more significant rounded by austenite, and the rate of growth of the nodule
(ii) not all the important mechanical properties have becomes a function of the rate of diffusion of carbon from
been considered, e.g. elongation, ultimate tensile the melt through the austenite to the growing nodule. This
strength, and fracture toughness. can be obtained from the equation of Su et al.16
It was the objective of the present work to carry out
modelling of a thick walled ferritic DCI casting, taking into dR Dc (C −C )R
a= c al ag g . . . . . . . . (2)
account fading and loss of nodularity, to ultimately dt (R −R )R (C −C )
calculate the mechanical properties (yield stress, ultimate a g a la al
tensile strength, elongation, and fracture toughness). where R is the radius of the austenite shell (m), Dc is the
a c
diffusion coefficient of carbon in austenite (m s−1), R is
g
the radius of the graphite nodule (m), C is the carbon
al
concentration of the austenite at the liquid boundary
Nodule count (wt-%), C is the carbon concentration of the austenite at
ag
the graphite boundary (wt-%), and C is the carbon
la
In the literature on modelling of DCI, the nodule count is concentration of the liquid at the austenite boundary
normally obtained from a coupled thermal–microstructure (wt-%). The values of C , C , and C can be obtained
al ag la
analysis of the process of solidification. Such an analysis from the phase diagram of the alloy under consideration.
calculates the undercooling of the melt below the eutectic In the present work the phase diagrams were calculated
solidification temperature, from which the nodule count is using the Thermo-Calc17 computer program.
obtained. However, in cases where the cooling rates at the The nodule count, uncorrected for fading, is obtained
eutectic solidification temperature are low (in the case by solving the above two equations simultaneously. The
considered the maximum is less than 10 K min−1) and equations to be solved are18
where inoculation is used to increase the nodule count, the
P AP B
H
4pt dN t dR 3
amount of undercooling is very small (<1 K) and a method V= a dt
of calculating nodule count which does not require coupled 3 dt dt
0 t
thermal–microstructure analysis can be used. This greatly f =1−exp(−V ) . . . . . . . (3)
simplifies the computing effort required, and allows non-
specialist commercial thermal analysis codes to be used. df
This approach was used in the work described in the Q=L
dt
present paper.
There are three phenomena to be considered in calculat- where V is the volume fraction of solid, f is the volume
ing the nodule count: nucleation, growth, and fading. fraction of solid corrected for cell to cell impingement, Q is
Nucleation is the formation of nuclei of graphite in the the rate of release of latent heat, t is time, and L is the
molten iron as it starts to solidify, growth is the growth of latent heat of DCI ( kJ kg−1).
these particles during the solidification process, and fading During solidification the undercooling increases until at
is the reduction in the number of nuclei with time during a certain point the rate of latent heat release is greater than
solidification. the rate of heat loss, at which point the temperature starts
to rise. At this point no further nodules are assumed to
form, and the nodule count is obtained from the maximum
NUCLEATION undercooling calculated.
The rate of nucleation can be obtained from Oldfield’s In order to decouple the thermal analysis from the
equation15 or some variation of it microstructure analysis the set of equations (3) is repeatedly
solved for different cooling rates at the eutectic temperature,
N=ADT 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1)
from which the relationship between cooling rate and
where N is the number of nuclei per unit volume, DT is nodule count is obtained. Figure 1 shows the results of
the degree of undercooling, i.e. the difference between the solving the set of equations (3) for the DCI in the present
eutectic solidification temperature and the actual temper- study for a range of cooling rates at the solidification
ature of the melt, and A is the empirical coefficient, temperature. It should be noted that, as these results
determined experimentally for the melt being used. were derived using an empirical coefficient which is only
Reaction, K s_1
relationship may be used with the results of a simple
thermal analysis of the casting process to obtain the nodule
count (uncorrected for fading).
FADING
Fading is the reduction in the number of locations within
the melt which can potentially act as nuclei for the
formation of graphite. The extent of this phenomenon
depends on the type of inoculant used, but in general there
is an exponential decrease in the nodule count with time.
To correct for this effect, the nodule count from Fig. 1
should be multiplied by exp(−t/t*), where t is the time Nodules/mm2
between inoculation and the start of the solidification 2 Variation of ferrite percentage with nodule count and
reaction, and t* is a parameter dependant on the type of cooling rate at start of eutectoid reaction
inoculant used.19 This correction is particularly important
for thick walled castings, for which the time between (ii) growth of the ferrite shell governed by the rate of
pouring and solidification is relatively long and fading incorporation of carbon into the nodule
becomes significant. (iii) growth of the ferrite shell governed by the rate of
diffusion of carbon in ferrite.
In the present study problems were encountered in trying
Nodularity
to model the first stage. However, this first stage appears
to be a refinement, and the essentials of the process can be
As mentioned above in the ‘Introduction’, nodularity N∞ is captured with the second and third stages only. The growth
a method of classifying the graphite form of cast iron. In rate of ferrite in stage (ii) is given by
the Japan Foundrymen’s Society (JFS) method4 nodules
A B A B
dIa (Cac −Cagr ) R 2 4pR3
are classified into five different types, types I to V. Types = c c g exp a m . . . . . (6)
IV and V are the desirable forms and nodularity N∞ is dt (Cca −Cac ) R 3
JFS c c a
calculated from the formula and the rate of growth in stage (iii) is given by
(0+N +0·3N +0·7N +0·9N +N )100 dIa Cac −Cagr R Da
N∞ = I II III IV V = c c g C . . . . . . . . . . (7)
JFS (N +N +N +N +N ) dt Cca −Cac IaR
I II III IV V c c a
where N is the number of type i nodules. where Ia is the thickness of the ferrite shell (m), R is the
i a
In the ISO 945 method5 nodules are classified into six radius of the ferrite shell (m), R is the radius of the
types, type I to VI. Types V and VI are the desirable forms. g
graphite nodule (m), Da is the coefficient of diffusion of
Nodularity N∞ is calculated from the formula C
ISO carbon in ferrite (m s−1), m is the parameter describing the
rate at which carbon atoms can be incorporated on the
A B
N +N graphite surface (m s−1), Cac and Cagr are the carbon
N∞ = V VI 100 c c
ISO VI concentrations (wt-%) of the ferrite at the austenite/ferrite
∑N and ferrite/graphite boundaries, respectively, and Cca
i c
I is the carbon concentration of the austenite at the
The percentage nodularity is a function of the eutectic
austenite/ferrite boundary (wt-%). The values of Cac, Cagr,
solidification time. There is very little quantitative published c c
and Cca are derived from the phase diagram for the alloy
research on the relationship between nodularity and c
in question.
solidification time, only one paper was found20 from which When the temperature falls below the metastable eutec-
the following equation was derived toid temperature (~30°C below the stable eutectoid
N∞ =87·5 exp(−0·0539t) . . . . . . . . . (4) temperature, depending on the composition of the iron in
JFS
where t is the time from start to finish of the eutectic question) then pearlite starts to form from any remaining
reaction in hours. Nodularity from the JFS method is austenite. The growth rate of pearlite is faster than that
related to that from the ISO method using the equation6 of ferrite, and is given by (dR /dt)=kDT 2, where R is the
p p
radius of the pearlite shell and k#9·4×10−10 (see Ref. 19).
N∞ =4·58+1·05N∞ . . . . . . . . . . (5) In solving these equations it is necessary to take account
ISO JFS
of segregation of silicon and manganese, and their effect on
the eutectoid temperatures. Segregation was calculated
Percentage ferrite and pearlite using Scheil’s equation, together with partition coefficients
obtained from Boeri.21
The method of calculating the percentage ferrite and The results for the iron in question are shown in Fig. 2.
pearlite followed that of Wessen.19 When the temperature The results are presented in the form of percentage ferrite
falls below the stable eutectoid temperature (around for a range of cooling rates at the eutectoid temperature
750–800°C, depending on the composition of the iron) and nodule counts. By using these results to post-process
austenite can decompose to ferrite. As the carbon content the temperature–time output from a thermal analysis of
of ferrite is much smaller than that of austenite the car- the casting process the percentage ferrite and pearlite can
bon released diffuses to the graphite nodules. The rate be obtained.
of transformation is governed by the rate of diffusion of
carbon in ferrite, and the rate of incorporation of carbon
into the nodules. Wessen describes this transformation as a Ferrite grain size
three stage process as follows:
(i) formation of a complete ferrite shell around the No method of calculating ferrite grain size of DCI has been
nodules found in the literature. However, from the data of Frenz
(a)
Ferrite Grain Size, µm
(a)
Mechanical properties
4 Comparison of yield stress data from Ref. 22 and
There have been many studies of the relationship between calculated values using a equation in Ref. 22 and
microstructural and mechanical properties of DCI. b equation (8) in present study
However, in most cases only a limited range of micro-
structural parameters have been studied, so that the range
of application of the formulae deduced is rather limited. where d is the ferrite grain size measured in micrometres,
Where necessary, in the present work, formulae containing the chemical compositions are measured in weight per cent,
a greater number of parameters and with a wider range of and the pearlite composition X is measured in per cent.
p
application have been deduced using the results of a Figure 4a shows the comparison between Frenz’s original
number of separate studies. equation22 and his test results for yield strength, and Fig. 4b
It is important to realise that in most cases the shows the comparison between equation (8) and his test
relationship between microstructural and mechanical prop- results. It can be seen that the agreement is improved. A
erties is non-linear, but over a restricted range the similar improvement is obtained for ultimate tensile
relationship is approximately linear. Thus, for example in strength.
Ref. 22 it was found that different parameters determined
the mechanical properties when the pearlite content was Elongation
greater than ~20% and when it was less than ~20%. The The following formula was obtained by combining formulae
relationships given below are applicable to DCI meeting from Venugopalan and Alagarsamy,25 which did not take
the following criteria: into account the effect of nodularity on elongation, and
(i) predominantly ferritic matrix (pearlite content <20%) Iwabuchi et al.,20 who studied the effect of nodularity on
(ii) nodularity (measured by JFS method)>70% elongation. The effect of nodularity was very non-linear,
(iii) silicon content <4 wt%, manganese content <1%, and significant scatter was found. However, for nodularities
other alloying elements should be ‘relatively greater than 70% the relationship can be linearised
insignificant’.
Elongation (%)=37·85−0·093H −0·8(95−N∞)
m
YIELD AND ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH . . . . . . . . . (10)
In Ref. 22 formulae are presented which relate the yield where H is the composite matrix microhardness which is
and ultimate tensile strength (UTS) of ferritic DCI to the m
given by
percentage silicon and pearlite. The effect of ferrite grain
H =(H X +H X )/100 . . . . . . . . . (11)
size and carbon content is not taken into account. In m f f p p
Ref. 24 carbon content and ferrite grain size are taken into where X is the ferrite content and H and H are the
account but silicon content and pearlite quantity are not f f p
hardness of ferrite and pearlite, respectively and are
considered. By combining both equations it is possible to calculated from the equations given below
obtain relationships covering a wider range of variables as
H =64+44[%Si ]+9[%Mn]+114[%P]+10[%Cu]
follows f
+7[%Ni ]+22[%Mo] . . . . . . . (12)
Yield stress (MPa)
=52+63·2×[%Si]+0·663X H =249+26[%Si]+12[%Mn]+234[%P]
p p
+21·6(1−0·0656×[%C])d−0·5 . . . . . (8) +16[%Cu]+17·5[%Ni ]+26[%Mo] . . (13)
UTS (MPa)
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS
=147+68·1[%Si]+1·77X This formula has been obtained by combining formulae
p
+26·7(1−0·0656[%C])d−0·5 . . . . . . (9) provided by Salzbrenner26 and Bhandhubanyong.27 The
Thermocouple 3
Node 5233 temperature
Temperature, °C
(a)
Thermocouple 6
Node 5408 temperature
(b)
Time, s
6 Comparison of test and finite element results for
temperature–time history at a thermocouple 3 (centre
of base) and b thermocouple 6 (inside of wall)
5 Illustration of test casting and finite element model
Nodules/mm2
Nodularity, %
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
a nodule count; b nodularity; c percentage ferrite; d yield stress
7 Calculated microstructural and mechanical properties
2. The nodularity also shows a reasonable distribution, 3. The casting is almost totally ferritic, owing to the long
being higher on the permanent mould side and lower on cooling time in the eutectoid range. This example is
the sand mould side, reflecting the difference in eutectic therefore not a good test to demonstrate the capability of
solidification time. the model to correctly predict ferrite/pearlite levels.
(e) (f)
(g) (h)
e ultimate tensile strength; f elongation; g fracture toughness J ; h fracture toughness K
1C JC
7 Calculated microstructural and mechanical properties (cont.)
4. Elongation increases with nodularity, and hence the 5. The plots of upper shelf fracture toughness (J and
1C
elongation is highest on the permanent mould side where K ) both show maxima in the central region where the
1C
nodularity is highest. thickness is greatest. This was initially a surprise, as this
Engineering Foresight Award from the Royal Academy of 14. . . and . : Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on ‘Physical
Engineering. metallurgy of cast iron’, Nancy, France, 1994, 535; 1997,
Uetilon, TransTech.
15. . . : T rans. ASM, 1966, 59, 935–961.
16. . . , . , and . : in ‘Physical metallurgy
References of cast iron’, (ed. M. Hillerts), MRS Symp. Proc., Vol. 34,
181–189; 1985, Pittsburgh, PA, Materials Research Society.
17. . , . , and .-. : Calphad, 1985,
1. . , . . , . , and . : Int. J. 9, (2), 153–190.
Radioact. Mater. T ransp., 1995, 6, (2/3), 205–209. 18. . : PhD thesis, Royal Institute of Technology,
2. Standard A874M–89, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1989. Stockholm, 1991.
3. Standard JIS G5504–1992, Japanese Standards Association, 19. . : PhD thesis, Royal Institute of Technology,
Tokyo, 1992 (in Japanese). Stockholm, 1997.
4. . : Imono (J. Jpn Foundrymen’s Soc.), 1968, 40, (3), 20. . , . , and . : Imono (J. Jpn
148 (in Japanese). Foundrymen’s Soc.), 1987, 59, (3), 153–158 (in Japanese).
5. Standard ISO 945 : 1975, International Standards Organisa- 21. . . : PhD thesis, University of British Columbia, 1989.
tion, Geneva, Switzerland, 1975. 22. . : Dr Ing dissertation, Technical University of Berlin,
6. Standard JIS G5502–1995, Japanese Standards Association, 1991 (in German).
Tokyo, 1995 (in Japanese). 23. . and . . : T rans. Jpn Inst. Met., 1983, 24,
7. . : Imono (J. Jpn Foundrymen’s Soc.), 1989, 61, (12), (12), 858–867.
876 (in Japanese). 24. . and . . : Metall. T rans. A, 1985, 16A,
8. . : Imono (J. Jpn Foundrymen’s Soc.), 1989, 61, (12), 667–673.
901 (in Japanese). 25. . and . : T rans. AFS, 1990, 98,
9. . : Kawasaki Steel T ech. Rep., 1987, 19, (3), 167–174. 395–400.
10. ‘The collected examples of computer simulation – application 26. . : ‘J fracture toughness of ferritic DCI alloys:
for casting processes’, Vol. 2; 1994, Tokyo, The Japan IC
a comparison of two versions of ASTM E813’. Report
Foundryman’s Society. SAND89-0818, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque,
11. . : in ‘Modelling of casting, welding and advanced NM, April 1989.
solidification processes VI’, 3–20; 1993, Warrendale, PA, TMS. 27. . et al.: Imono (J. Jpn Foundrymen’s Soc.),
12. . : Int. Mater. Rev., 1989, 34, (3), 93–123. 1985, 57, (7), 419–425 (in Japanese).
13. . and . . : in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on 28. Computer program LS-DYNA3D, Version 940, Livermore
‘Numerical methods in thermal problems’, Stanford, CT, July Software Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA, February
1991, Vol. VII, (1), 328–339; 1991, Swansea, Pineridge Press. 1997.