Wear, 84 (1983) 297 - 312 297

A STUDY OF CAVITATION EROSION OF CAST IRON

T. OKADA and Y. IWAI

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Fukui University, Bunkyo 3-9-1, Fukui (Japan)
A. YAMAMOTO
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., Osaka (Japan)
(Received May 14, 1982; in revised form July 30,1982)

Summary

Cavitation erosion tests were carried out in ion-exchanged water using

four cast irons (gray or spheroidal graphite) together with carbon steels with
the same matrix as the cast irons. The erosion mechanism of the cast irons is
explained through the growth of eroded cracks which depends on both the
notch action of graphite and the notch sensitivity of the matrix. The erosion
resistances of the cast irons and of the carbon steels were compared. A linear
relation was obtained from the logarithmic curve between the reciprocal of
the maximum mass loss rate and H,*/E& (where Hv is the Vickers micro-
hardness, E is the elastic modulus and & is the fatigue strength reduction
factor for cast iron). It is thus concluded that the cavitation erosion resis-
tance of cast iron is less by a factor of (l//3,)‘*’ than that of carbon steel of
the same hardness as the cast iron matrix.

1. Introduction

Cavitation damage of cast iron is initiated from graphite, so the erosion

resistance is influenced greatly by the graphite size, shape and distribution
and by the matrix strength [ 11. Thus it was reported [2] that spheroidal
graphite cast iron is better than gray cast iron and pearlitic cast iron is
superior to ferritic cast iron in erosion resistance. Endo [3] showed that
much erosion damage in cast irons arises from the free graphite, so the
erosion resistance is dependent on the size and shape of the graphite even if
the matrix is hardened by heat treatment. If it is assumed that the erosion
rate of cast iron is higher because the free graphite acts as a surface notch in
the formation of erosion particles, it is necessary to observe the relationship
between the shape and size of graphite and the sensitivity of the matrix to a
notch just as in the study of metal fatigue.
In the present work, cavitation erosion tests were carried out using
various specimens, i.e. gray and spheroidal graphite cast iron with a matrix

0043-1648/83/0000-0000/$03.00 @ Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands

298

of pearfite or ferrite. The erosion mechanism is explained through the

behaviour of erosion cracks which initiate and propagate depending on both
the graphite shape and the matrix. The erosion resistances of various cast
irons are also compared with carbon steels for more general use.

2. Test materials and experimental procedure

2.1. Test matertats

Test materials were ferritic gray cast iron or pearlitic gray cast iron (FClO
or FCZO respectively; ASTM A48) and ferritic or pearlitic spheroidal graphite
cast iron (FCD40 or FCD70; ASTM A536). For comparison, 0.15% C steel
(S15G; AISI-SAE 1015), 0.54% C steel (S55C; AISI-SAE 1055) and tool
steel (Japanese designation SK4) were also tested, The chemical composi-
tions and heat treatments used are listed in Tables 1 and 2. FClO is obtained
by ferritizing FC20. The carbon contents of the various cast irons are similar.
Magnesium is added to obtain the spheroidal graphite of FCD40 and FCD70.
The mechanical properties were measured in the Fukui University
laboratory, and they are summarized in Table 3. The Brine11 hardness & is

TABLE 1

Chemical compositions (wt.%] of the test materials

Material c Si Mn P S &

FClO, FC20 3.27 1.71 0.34 0.12 0.063

FCD40 3.47 2.71 0.31 0.033 0.013 0.033
FCD70 3.25 2.68 0.24 0.030 0.010 0.035
s15c 0.15 0.25 0.47 0.015 0.013
S55C 0.54 0.27 0.82 0.016 0.017
SK4 1.11 0.34 0.98 0.014 0.009

TABLE 2

Heat treatments of the test materials

Material Details of the following heat treatments

Before machining After machining.

annealing
Annealing Normalizing

FC20 - -
I
FClO 940 “C for 120 min -
540 “C for 30 min
FCD70 - 940 “C for 60 min
FCD40 940 “C for 120 min - J
SK4 - 940 “C! for 60 min
S15C 910 “C for 60 min - 600 “C for 30 min
s55c 850 “C for 60 min -
 299

TABLE 3
Mechanical properties of the test materials

Material aB@'fPa) E (GPa) Hv HB uw WW &

FClO 110 71.5 152 91 49.0 4.3

FC20 201 97.0 350 172 58.8 6.7
FCD40 414 167 201 126 137 1.5
FCD70 860 167 385 278 235 1.7
s15c 420 204 150 101 211
s55c 706 204 240 190
SK4 1117 204 370 331 390

the measure of the macrohardness and the Vickers hardness Hv is the mea-
sure of the microhardness of the matrixes. u, is the fatigue limit, which is
measured in a rotating-bending fatigue test using unnotched specimens in air
(cantilever-type test at a stress cycle frequency of 1200 rev min-l). & is a
fatigue strength reduction factor for cast iron, i.e. [4]
u,(carbon steel with the same structure as the matrix of cast iron)
P, =
uW(cast iron)
The test materials were cast in bars of 30 mm diameter and heat treated
to obtain the desired microstructure. Test pieces were then machined to the
size shown in Fig. 1. The test surface was buff finished. The specimens were
then vacuum annealed to eliminate cold-work effects.

MlOX1.25

Fig. 1. Shape and dimensions of specimen (all dimensions are given in millimetres; thread
diameter, 10 mm; thread pitch, 1.25 mm).

Figure 2 shows the microstructures of four cast irons. The length of the
flake graphite, or the diameter of the spheroidal graphite, and the number of
graphite particles per unit area are listed in Table 4. The size and number of
graphite particles are similar regardless of the matrix structure.

2.2. Experimental procedure

The cavitation erosion tests were carried out using the magnetostrictive
vibratory facility described previously [ 51. The test specimen was attached
to the free end of the horn and vibrated in water at 14.5 kHz. The double
amplitude was maintained at 40 pm by controlling the output current of the
(a)

(c) Cd)
Fig. 2. Microstructures of test materials: (a) FClO; (b) FC20; (c) FCD40; (d) FCD70.

TABLE 4
Size and number of graphite particles

Type of cast iron Test Number of Size parameters of the graphite particles a
material graphite
Average size Standard deviation
particles
(mm-*) (Pm) (Pm)

Gray cast iron FClO 371 57.4 32.5

FC20 376 59.8 39.3

Spheroidal graphite FCD40 200 27.0 11.6

cast iron FCD70 220 21.5 13.2

‘For flake graphite, the particle length was measured; for spheroidal graphite, the particle
diameter was measured.

oscillator, which is almost proportional to the amplitude. Ion-exchanged

water was used as the test liquid to minimize corrosive effects. The test
vessel (a glass beaker with a capacity of 500 cm3) was surrounded by circu-
 301

lating water (the temperature was held constant by an electronic cooling bath)
and the test water was maintained at 25 f 1 “C. The end plane of the test
piece was immersed to a depth of about 3 - 4 mm. The mass loss was mea-
sured with a precision balance (sensitivity, 0.01 mg). Eroded surfaces and
erosion particles were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). In
addition, the cracks in the cross sections of the test pieces were observed at
test termination.

3. Experimental results and discussion

3.1. Cavitation erosion of pearlitic cast iron

In general, pearlitic cast iron is more often used in practical applications
than ferritic cast iron so we discuss here mostly the erosion of pearlitic cast
iron. Figure 3 shows mass loss rate curves for FC20 and FCD70 together

0 120 240
Exposure time min

Fig. 3. Mass loss rate curves of pearlitic cast irons.

with those of S55C carbon steel and SK4 tool steel for comparison. The
erosion processes for cast iron are similar to those for plain carbon steels
[6] , namely there exists an “initial period”, where a comparatively large
mass loss occurs, followed by an “incubation period” where there is little
further loss. There is a subsequent “transition period” with an increasing
mass loss rate and then a “stable period” with an approximately constant
maximum rate. Finally, there is a “deceleration period”, during which the
erosion rate decreases gradually. However, the mass loss rate for cast iron
increases strongly during the initial period, and also during the incubation
period. These phenomena, as will be discussed in detail, are caused by
surface graphite.
The mass loss rates in the stable period for FC20 and FCD70 are greater
by factors of about 10 and about 2 than the mass loss rate for SK4, whose
hardness is the same as that of the matrix of the cast irons. Although the
matrix of FC20 is harder than that of S55C, the mass loss rate is larger for
FC20 than for S55C. These results may be due to the notch action of
Fig. 4. Eroded surfaces in the initial period (after 5 min): (a) FC20; (b) FCD70.

Fig. 5. Eroded surfaces in the incubation period:, (a) FC20 (after 10 min); (b) FCD70
(after 20 min).

graphite in the matrix. Notch action of graphite is greater for gray cast iron
than for spheroidal graphite cast iron.
To study the behaviour of graphite during the erosion process, speci-
men surfaces were observed by SEM. Figure 4 shows an eroded surface
which had been exposed to cavitation for 5 min. This is during the initial
period. Graphite, and any other compounds on the surface, is easily ejected.
However, the matrix has not yet changed so the larger mass loss rates in the
initial period may be due to the removal of graphite particles. Figure 5 shows
the eroded surfaces of FC20 cavitated for 10 min and of FCD70 cavitated
for 20 min. These are from the incubation period. The matrix material
surrounding the graphite is pounded into small fragments, which are then
ejected. Thus a larger mass loss rate occurs in the incubation period for cast
iron. The matrix slips along the flake graphite boundaries for the FC20. This
means that considerably longer cracks are developed inside the matrix.
Figure 6 shows the eroded surfaces of FC20 cavitated for 30 min and of
Fig. 6. Eroded surfaces in the transition period: (a) FC20 (after 30 min); (b) FCD70

(a)

(cl
Fig. 7. Series of photomicrographs taken at the same test surface location for FC20
during the stable period: (a) after 160 min; (b) after 170 min; (c) after 180 min.
(a)

(cl
Fig. 8. Series of photomicrographs taken at the same test surface location for FCD70
during the stable period: (a) after 360 min; (b) after 375 min; (c) after 390 min.

FCD70 cavitated for 100 min. Large particles are removed along the flake
graphite boundaries for FC20. For FCD70, the matrix surrounding the
crater formed by the ejection of spheroidal graphite is eroded, and accord-
ingly the craters are further extended.
Figure 7 is a series of photomicrographs taken at the same test surface
location for FC20 during the stable period. Large craters are formed on the
spongy surface. It is considered that larger particles are removed in succes-
sion, resulting in large local craters, and simultaneously spongy surfaces are
fragmented into small pieces and then ejected into the liquid. Figure 8 shows
a similar series of photomicrographs for FCD70 in the stable period. Many
cracks surround the crater formed by spheroidal graphite removal Thus
small debris particles are ejected from the crater walls.
Figure 9 shows roughness profiles of the eroded surface during the
stable period. These correspond to a cumulative mass loss of about 70 mg.
The mass loss rate is larger for S55C than for SK4, but both steels are eroded
almost uniformly over the whole surface. By contrast, FC20 suffers rela-
tively deep eroded pits (up to about 200 pm in depth). The FCD70 surface
 305

(b)

(d)

Fig. 9. Roughness profiles of eroded surfaces obtained in the stable period (the profiles
correspond to mass losses of about 70 mg): (a) FC20 (test duration, 180 min; mass loss,
72 mg); (b) FCDPO (test duration, 720 min; mass loss, 72 mg); (c) SK4 (test duration,
1440 min; mass loss, 73 mg); (d) S55C (test duration, 120 min; mass loss, 67 mg).

is eroded approximately uniformly but is much rougher than both SK4 and
S55C. These results indicate that craters are caused by graphite removal.
Cast iron forms therefore a particularly rough surface because of the
presence of flake or spheroidal graphite in the matrix.
Figures 10(a) and 10(c) show the cross sections of specimens in the
stable period. The cracks observed are of two types. Type I cracks are short
cracks in the matrix, unrelated to the graphite. Type II cracks are cracks
which propagate from the bottom of a graphite particle into the matrix, or
through several such graphite particles. Typical cracks of both types are
shown schematically in Figs. 10(b) and 10(d).
The average crack length and the number of cracks per unit length of
cross section are summarized in Table 5. For FC20 the average type II crack
length is about five times longer than the type I cracks (the longest cracks of
type II are up to about 100 pm in length). For FCD70, most of the cracks of
 Eroded matrix

Type Ii Type II
(a) (b)

(c) Cd)

Fig. 10. Cross sections of test pieces in the stable period and corresponding schematic
models of the cracks: (a) cross section of FC20; (b) schematic model corresponding to
(a); (c) cross section of FCD70; (d) schematic model corresponding to (c).

TABLE 5
Average crack length and number of cracks per unit length of cross section in the stable
period

Type of cast iron Test material Average lengths Numbers of cracks

(Pm) (cm-l)

Type 1 Type II Type I Type II Total

Pearlite FC20 5.5 29.0 229 247 476

FCD70 3.6 4.5 420 373 793
SK4 6.7 - 529 - 529

Ferrite FClO 7.5 21.7 702 160 862

FCD40 9.5 12.8 632 123 755
s15c 9.8 - 651 - 651
 301

both types are less than 10 pm in length, but the total number of cracks is
about 1.5 times that for FC20 and SK4.
For comparison, erosion particles ejected into liquid were observed by
SEM. Figure 11 shows cumulative distributions of particle size and mass in
the stable period. The particle mass is calculated by assuming that the
particles are spheres. Distributions for FCD70 and SK4 are similar. However,
for FC20 there are more larger particles so that the mass frequency is greater
for the larger size.
From these results, we thus conclude that type II cracks propagate
more deeply for FC20 and larger erosion particles are ejected. This results in
locally deeper erosion craters and a substantial mass loss rate increase. For
FCD70 many cracks originate at the boundary between graphite and matrix
but do not propagate deeply because of a lower notch action. Thus smaller
erosion particles fall quickly from the graphite boundary, resulting in an
increased graphite void size and erosion rate.

3.2. Cavitation erosion of ferritic cast iron

Figure 12 shows mass loss rate curves for FClO and FCD40 and for
S15C, which has the same structure as the matrix of both cast irons. The
mass loss rates in the stable period are larger for ferritic than for pearlitic
cast irons as shown in Fig. 3. The mass loss rate ratios of cast irons to steel
are 2.5:0.8:1 (FClO:FCD40:S15C) for ferritic cast iron and 10:2:1 (FC20:
FCD70:SK4) for pearlitic cast iron. The mass loss rate ratio is thus least for
ferritic cast irons because the graphite notch action is less for a ferritic than
a pearlitic matrix.

O.Ol
0 I SIX of part1cles pm
0 60 120 0
Exposure time mln
Fig. 11. Cumulative frequency distributions for size and mass of erosion particles in the
stable period.

Fig. 12. Mass loss rate curves of ferritic cast irons.

(a)

(b) Br

Fig. 13. Roughness profiles of eroded surfaces obtained in the stable period (the profiles
correspond to mass losses of about 70 mg): (a) FClO (test duration, 40 min; mass loss,
68 mg); (b) FCD40 (test duration, 90 min; mass loss, 66 mg); (c) S15C (test duration,
90 min; mass loss, 64 mg).

Figure 13 shows the surface roughness of FClO, FCD40 and S15C

during the stable period. The cumulative mass loss is about 70 mg for all
materials. By comparing Figs. 9 and 13 it can be seen that S15C is eroded
relatively uniformly over the entire surface, and it does not differ much
from S55C or SK4. However, FClO shows many deep eroded craters and a
substantial increase in roughness compared with FC20. Similarly, the rough-
ness of FCD40 is significantly greater than that of FCD70.
By comparing cracks in the ferritic and pearlitic matrix (Table 5) it can
be seen that the average crack length of both type I and type II cracks for
FCD40 is about three times that for FCD70, but for FClO the type II crack
length is shorter than for FC20. These results show that erosion cracks are
longer in a ferritic than in a pearlitic matrix for both carbon steel and
spheroidal graphite cast iron, but the trend is reversed for gray cast iron.
These tendencies are opposite to those for the mass loss rate and the eroded
surface roughness (Figs. 12 and 13).
Figure 14 shows the distributions of cumulative frequencies for the size
and mass of the erosion particles. The mass distributions show little dif-
ference between ferritic cast irons (FClO and FCD40) and steel (S15C). Thus
the erosion particle size (the largest particle is less than about 40 pm in size
for the three materials) is much smaller for FClO than for FC20 but is larger
for FCD40 than for FCD70. The following conclusion can be drawn from these
Y
2 10

E FCIO FCD40 S15C

:
1

Frequency q q q
0.1

0 50 100

Sme of partIcks pm

Fig. 14. Cumulative frequency distributions for size and mass of erosion particles in the
stable period.

results. For ferritic gray cast iron (FClO), although cracks propagate more
slowly because of the lower notch sensitivity of the matrix, erosion particles
are ejected quickly before the cracks propagate deeply because of the
low matrix strength. It may thus be considered that local surface erosion
becomes greater and the mass loss rate is increased substantially for ferritic
gray cast iron in comparison with pearlitic gray cast iron. For ferritic sphe-
roidal graphite cast iron (FCD40), the number of cracks occurring around
the spheroidal graphite is only about one-third of that for the pearlitic cast
iron (Table 5) because of the low notch action and lower notch sensitivity of
the matrix. However, the cracks propagate further in proportion to the re-
duction in matrix strength, resulting in increased size of erosion particles,
and hence increased erosion rate.

3.3. Erosion resistance of cast iron

Maximum mass loss rates in the stable period are listed in Table 6 for all
materials together with the improvement ratio for erosion resistance when
the matrix is strengthened by transforming ferrite into pearlite. The improve-
ment ratio is greatest for carbon steel but least for gray cast iron because of
the severe notch action of graphite. It has been concluded (e.g. in ref. 6) that
cavitation erosion is caused by local fatigue fractures from repeated bubble
collapse pressures on the surface. Generally, the fatigue strength of carbon
steel increases in proportion to one-half of the tensile strength for smooth
specimens. However, the degree of strength increase for notched specimens
becomes smaller according to the sharpness of the notch [ 71. Therefore, by
comparing the lower improvement ratios of cast irons with the fatigue
310

TABLE 6
Improvement ratio of erosion resistance when the matrix is strengthened by transforming
ferrite into pearlite

Material Test material designations and Improvement ratio of

corresponding mass loss rates erosion resistance
(mg hP’) for the following (ferrite in to pearlite)
material structures

Ferrite Pearlite

Gray cast iron FClO; 159.6 FC20; 30.5 5.2

Spheroidal graphite cast iron FCD40; 56.7 FCD70; 6.0 9.5
Steel S15C; 67.3 SK4; 3.1 21.7

strength increase of notched specimens for tensile strength, the erosion

resistance is found to exhibit tendencies similar to fatigue.
Until now, it has often been found (e.g. in refs. 8 - 12) that the erosion
resistance shows a better correlation with oB2/2E or HB2/E, which means the
strain energy to fracture, rather than with a single mechanical property such
as tensile strength or hardness. However, when the erosion resistance (e.g.
the reciprocal of maximum mass loss rate in the stable period) is plotted
against HB2/E, cast iron shows a lower resistance than those of carbon steels
or various other metals [12]. This may be due to the treatment of cast iron
as macroscopically homogeneous. It is thus necessary to study further the
erosion resistance of cast iron with the consideration that the matrix
strength for repeated stressing is reduced because of the notch action by the
graphite.
The reciprocals of the maximum mass loss rate for the cast irons and
steels are plotted (Fig. 15) as functions of Hv2/E& instead of Hv2/E, where
/3, is the fatigue strength reduction factor for cast iron. A single linear

Fig. 15. Relation between erosion resistance and HV2/E&.

 311

relation was then obtained on a logarithmic graph for the cast irons as well
as for the steels. The slope (calculated by the least-squares method) of the
line was 1.7 (equivalent to about 60”). The linear correlation coefficient was
0.99. It is thus concluded that the cavitation erosion resistance of cast iron
is smaller by a factor of (l/p,) 1.7 than that of carbon steel of the same
hardness as the cast iron matrix.

4. Conclusions

Cavitation erosion tests were performed using gray cast irons, spheroidal
graphite cast irons and carbon steels with the same matrix as the cast irons.
The following conclusions are drawn.
(1) Although cavitation erosion of cast irons exhibits erosion processes
similar to carbon steel with increasing exposure duration, erosion rates in the
initial and/or incubation periods are larger for cast irons than for carbon
steels because of the effects of graphite.
(2) For gray cast irons, long erosion cracks occur because of the severe
notch action at the graphite interfaces and locally deep erosion craters are
formed, resulting in an increased erosion rate. For spheroidal graphite cast
irons, many erosion cracks originate along the boundary between graphite
and matrix, and accordingly the craters are extended from the spheroidal
graphite holes. The erosion rate is thus increased. As a result, erosion damage
is higher for gray cast iron than for spheroidal graphite cast iron.
(3) Erosion resistance is higher for pearlitic than for ferritic cast irons.
The improvement ratios, however, are smaller than those assumed from the
increased strength of the matrix.
(4) A linear relation was obtained on a logarithmic plot between the
reciprocal of the maximum mass loss rate and Hv2/E&, where & is the
fatigue strength reduction factor for cast iron. Thus the cavitation erosion
resistance of cast iron is (l//3,)1*7 times smaller than that of carbon steel with
the same matrix hardness as the cast iron.

Acknowledgments

This work was performed in Japan as part of a joint research pro-

gramme between Fukui University, Japan, and the Cavitation and Multiphase
Flow Laboratory, University of Michigan, MI, U.S.A. The authors would
like to extend their thanks to Professor F. G. Hammitt, University of Michigan.

References

1 S. Watanabe and M. Maeda, Effects of some properties of metals on cavitation erosion

resistance, Hitachi Zosen Giho, 25 (3) (1964) 179 (in Japanese).
312

2 F. Erdmann-Jesnitzer and H. Louis, Erosive damage processes due to cavitation,

Proc. 3rd fnf. Congr. on Marine Corrosion and Fouling, 1975, p. 439.
3 K. Endo, Surface engineering, Yokendo, Tokyo, 1976 (in Japanese).
4 S. Aoyama and H. Namikawa, Estimation of the fatigue strength of iron casting by
X-ray stress measurement technique, J. Sot. Mafer. Sci., 18 (195) (1969) 1087 (in
Japanese).
5 T. Okada and N. Maekawa, Resistance of cavitation erosion on hard metal, J. Sot.
Muter. Sci., 28 (311) (1979) 752 (in Japanese).
6 T. Okada, J. Iwamoto and K. Sano, Fundamental studies on cavitation erosion
(observation of the eroded surface by scanning electron microscope), l3ulE. Jpn. Sot.
Mech. Eng., 20 (147) (1977) 1067.
I The Society of Materials Science, Fatigue of Mefals, Maruzen, Tokyo, 1964 (in
Japanese).
8 J. M. Hobbs, Experience with a 20-kc cavitation erosion test, in ASTM Spec. Tech.
Publ. 408, 1967, p. 159 (American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
PA].
9 R. Garcia and F. G. Hammitt, Cavitation damage and correlations with material and
fluid properties, J. Basic Eng., 89 (1967) 753.
10 F. G. Hammitt, Cavitation and Multiphase Flow Phenomena, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1980.
11 J.-g. He and F. G. Hammitt, Comparison of cavitation erosion test results from
Venturi and vibratory facilities, Wear, 76 (3) (1982) 269.
12 K. Endo, Cavitation erosion, Kikai No Kenkyu, 21 (4) (1969) 579 (in Japanese).