Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333

Solidification and modeling of cast iron—A short history of the defining moments
Doru M. Stefanescu
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA Received in revised form 2 August 2005

Abstract Human civilization has evolved from the Stone Age, through the Bronze Age to reach the Iron Age around 1500 B.C. There are many to contend that today we are living in the age of engineered materials, yet the importance of iron castings continues to support the thesis that we are still in the Iron Age. Cast iron, the first man-made composite, is at least 2500 years old. It remains the most important casting material, with over 70% of the total world tonnage. The main reasons for cast iron longevity are its wide range of mechanical and physical properties coupled with its competitive price. This paper is a review of the fundamentals of solidification of iron-base materials and of the mathematical models that describe them, starting with the seminal paper by Oldfield, the first to attempt modeling of microstructure evolution during solidification, to the prediction of mechanical properties. The latest analytical models for irregular eutectics such as cast iron as well as numerical models with microstructure output are discussed. However, since the space does not permit an extensive description of the multitude of models available today, the emphasis is on model performance rather than the mathematics of model formulation. Also, because of space constrains, white iron and defect occurrence will not be covered. © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cast iron; Microstructure; Mechanical properties; Solidification; Analytical and computational modelling of solidification

1. Introduction While the primeval potter was the first to modify the state of matter, he left little if any trace in the mythological and archeological record. Thus, according to Eliade [1], the starting point in understanding the behavior of primitive societies in relation to matter must be the relationship of primitive man to mineral substances, in particular that of the iron-worker. Primitive people worked with meteoric iron long before learning to extract iron from iron ore. The Sumerian word AN.BAR, the oldest word designating iron, is made up of the pictogram ‘sky’ and ‘fire’. Similar terminology is found in Egypt ‘metal from heaven’ and with the Hittites ‘black iron from sky’. Yet metallurgy did not establish itself until the secret of smelting magnetite or hematite was discovered, followed by the art of hardening the metal through quenching. The beginning of this metallurgy on an industrial scale can be situated at 1200–1000 B.C. in the mountains of Armenia [1]. In the European tradition it was St. P´ ran, the patron saint of mines, who invented smelting e of metals.
E-mail address: 0921-5093/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2005.08.180

Metal workers were so important in early history that sometimes they raised to the level of royalty. According to certain sources, Genghis Khan was a simple smith before acceding to power. In ancient Java, the genealogy of metallurgists, like that of princes, goes back to god. And, in most ancient cultures, the metallurgist was believed to have a direct link to the divine, if not of divine origin himself. Thus, it is with a certain reverence that I approached the task of reviewing the long history of the first man-made composite, cast iron, from its archeologically documented beginning some 2500 years ago, to the age of virtual cast iron, where its structure and properties are the outcome of computational exercises. 2. A short history of an old material The earliest dated iron casting is a lion produced in China in 502 B.C. Introduction of cast iron in Europe did not occur until about 1200–1450 A.D. Remarkable European cast iron artifacts include the sewer pipes in Versailles (1681) and the iron bridge near Coalbrookdale in England (1779). Before the invention of microscope in 1860, only two types of iron were known, based

With that. which is enormous.M. cast iron remains the most important casting material accounting for about 70% of the total world casting tonnage. heat treatment is scarcely used for cast iron. The opposite is true if Fig.1. Maurer designed his famous structural diagram that established direct correlation between the C and Si content of the iron and its as-cast microstructure. Tensile test should not be used for cast iron. chill. It took another 50 years for ductile iron to be discovered (1938–1940 independently by Adey. The first attempt to understand the solidification microstructure was apparently that of Roll.2–4. in 1924. 3). If undercooling is the result of increased cooling rate. Nucleation and undercooling Solidification starts with nucleation. strength. solidification determines casting soundness. most solidification defects cannot be corrected through heat treatment. Compression test should be made. Then. 1. 1 [3]). Extensive work by Patterson and Ammann [5] demonstrated that the effect of undercooling on the eutectic cell count depends on the way the undercooling occurs. 3. set.4. The main reasons for cast iron longevity are the wide range of mechanical and physical properties associated with its competitive price. on the appearance of their fracture: white and gray. 2. proposing the first equation correlating the carbon and silicon content: (C + Si)/1. but should be confined to steel and other ductile materials.5 = 4. The major discoveries of cast iron ended in the 1970s with the recognition of compacted graphite (CG) iron as a grade in its own merit. who in 1934 outlined the “primary crystals” using Baumann etching to show the position of Mn sulfides (Fig. which is strongly affected by undercooling. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333 323 Today. A good resource for the early discoveries that propelled cast iron in its present position is Piwowarsky’s famous monograph published in 1942 [4]. 2). In summary. grain and hardness. is always in excess of loads which can be applied”. . but is generally neglected. Fig. the dependency of graphite shape on magnesium or cerium content was fully understood (see for example Fig. then the number of cells increases (Fig. In 1896.D. by 1892 Ledebur recognized the role of silicon on the solidification structure of cast iron. According to this source. Roll’s schematic representation of position of MnS around grains and dendrites (after [4]). solidification is the main driver of casting properties. Critical discoveries in understanding the solidification of cast iron Before society accepts to continue sinking resources in the study of solidification rather than of global warming it is important to understand why solidification is important. deflection. Our knowledge of cast iron was extremely limited for a long time. Correlation between the Mg residual and graphite shape [3]. 3. from the common erroneous impression that the resistance of a small cube or cylinder. the first paper on cast iron to be published in the newly created Journal of the American Foundrymen’s Association [2] stated the following: “The physical properties of cast iron are shrinkage. Millis and Morrogh). Some of the quick answers include: solidification processing allows microstructure engineering.

Using the results of SEM analysis. these metals form saltlike carbides that develop epitaxial planes with the graphite. After inoculation with FeSi that contains another metal (Me) such as Al. hexagonal silicates (MeO·SiO2 or MeO·Al2 O3 ·2SiO2 ) form at the surface of the oxides. 6). Understanding nucleation was and continues to be the subject of extensive studies. undercooling is a consequence of the depletion of nuclei through superheating.g. the core is made of Ca Mg or Ca Mg Sr sulfides. Al2 O3 . Since graphite is in most cases an eutectic phase.324 D. [9] contended that SG nucleates on duplex sulfide-oxide inclusions (1 m dia. favorable to graphite nucleation. Weis [8] assumed that nucleation of LG occurs on SiO2 oxides formed by heteroge- neous catalysis of CaO. Later. 5). Attempting to explain the efficiency of metals such as Ca. 4. Lux [7] suggested in 1968 that.. while the outer shell is made of complex Mg Al Si Ti oxides. [12] in 1974 (Fig. Jacobs et al. mostly because of the difficulties to outline the primary austenite through metallographic techniques. The effect of undercooling on the eutectic cell count [5]. These experiments are the beginning of the effort of building the extensive database required for solidification modeling of cast iron. Ba and Sr in the inoculation of lamellar graphite (LG) iron. Crystallization of graphite from the liquid The debate on the preferred growth direction of graphite seems to have been initiated by Herfurth [11] who in 1965 postulated that the change from lamellar to spheroidal graphite occurs because of the change in the ratio between growth on the [1 0 1 0] face (A direction) and growth on the [0 0 0 1] face of the graphite prism (C direction). A similar theory of double-layered nucleation was proposed at the same time for spheroidal graphite (SG). which seems to be the most common. a clear possibility of its nucleation on the primary austenite exist. Oldfield [6] was able to quantify the nucleation and growth of eutectic grains. Rejection of C and Si by the solidifying austenite imposes a high solutal undercooling in the proximity of the γ phase. They argued that SG nuclei are sulfides (MgS. Sadocha and Gruzleski [13] postulated the circumferential growth of graphite spheroids. Assuming that the preferred growth direction for the SG is the A direction. and thus constitute nuclei for graphite (Fig. Growth of graphite on the epitaxial planes of saltlike carbides [7]. Yet. 3. This idea was further developed by Skaland et al. CaS) covered by Mg silicates (e. and oxides of other alkaline metals. little is known on this subject. 3. 4). it was not until 1961 when through quenching from semisolid state. with coherent/semicoherent low energy interfaces between substrate and graphite (Fig.). While the analysis of solidification events was based for many years on indirect observations.2. Experimental evidence for growth on both of these directions was provided by Lux et al. Ca. MgO·SiO2 ) or oxides that have low potency (large disregistry). Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333 Fig. . Fig. when introduced in molten iron. [10].M. Sr or Ba.

3) throughout the microstructure. [15] in 1975. In 1953. 5. [19] who preformed calculations for the steady-state diffusion-controlled growth of graphite. 3. and then documented experimentally by Jones and Kurz [16] in 1980. 6. Many other theories that did not gain wide acceptance in the science community were advanced over the years. the modifiers being sulfur and oxygen.D. An exam- Fig. Scheil and H¨ tter [18] meau sured the radii of the graphite and the γ shell and concluded that they develop such as to conserve a constant ratio (rγ /rGr = 2. Today it is generally accepted that the spheroidal shape is the natural growth habit of graphite in liquid iron. . which describes non-equilibrium solidification.3. (a) Growth of graphite along the A direction and (b) growth of graphite along the C direction [12]. For a more detailed discussion on this subject the reader could use reference [14]. Experimental evidence of graphite growth along the A or C direction and schematic representation of possible mechanisms.M. Patterson and Scheil used experimental findings to state that SG forms in the melt and is later encapsulated in a γ shell. Low potency (left) and high potency (right) nuclei for SG iron [10]. because of space restrictions only the former will be discussed in some detail. They succeeded in constructing such diagrams for pure Fe C alloys solidifying white or with flake graphite. Solidification of the iron–graphite eutectic While considerable effort was deployed to understand the solidification of the stable (Fe–graphite) and metastable (Fe Fe3 C) eutectics. LG is a modified shape. The theoretical construction of these types of diagrams for cast iron was first demonstrated by Lux et al. One of the most important concepts in understanding the variety of microstructures that can occur during the solidification of cast iron is that of the asymmetric coupled phase diagram. Such diagrams explain for example the presence of primary austenite dendrites in the microstructure of hypereutectic irons. This ratio was confirmed theoretically by Wetterfall et al. They affect graphite growth through some surface adsorption mechanism [14]. In 1949. which is very early after the discovery of SG iron. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333 325 Fig. This was later confirmed by Sch¨ bel [17] through quenching and o centrifuging experiments.

M. This concept was partially validated through DS experiments by Li et al. It became a truism [30] that if both the beginning and end of solidification occur above the metastable temperature. while if only one temperature is lower than Tmet the iron is mottled. The gray-to-white structural transition (GWT) The first rationalization of the GWT was based on the influence of cooling rate on the stable and metastable eutectic temperatures. 8a). the dendritic shape of the austenite will be altered and the γ-liquid interface will exhibit only small protuberances instead of clear secondary arms (Fig. As shown in Fig.326 D. At cooling rates smaller than (dT/dt)cr the iron solidifies gray. Measurements of the average eutectic lamellar spacing in LG iron [21. However. Influence of composition and solidification velocity on the morphology of the S/L interface. [27] (Fig. Austenite precipitates then at the graphite–gas interface. 9. 8c) [14]. 7b). Some interesting analogies were made by comparing images obtained from SEM analysis of microshrinkage in SG iron [28] with results of phase-filed modeling of dendrites. Directional solidification (DS) experiments generated significant information on the mechanism of microstructure formation.24] demonstrated that it does not behave like a regular eutectic. ple is the gas bubble theory postulated by Karsay [20].26] summarized the influence of the amount of solute on the morphology of the solid–liquid (S/L) interface of graphitic iron as shown in Fig. since the average spacing was about an order of magnitude higher than predicted by Jackson–Hunt for regular eutectics. the iron is white. 3. Indeed. For a description of this approach Refs. Lakeland and Hogan [21] produced the first composition versus thermal gradient/solidification velocity ratio (C–G/V) diagram for FG iron in 1968. Thus. and considering the influence of nucleation undercooling for both the stable and metastable eutectics. restrictions imposed by isotropic diffusion growth will impose an increased isotropy on the system. the two intersect at a cooling rate which is the critical cooling rate (dT/dt)cr . as the cooling rate increases. using cooling curve analysis. 8b and d. . If both temperatures are under Tmet . (a) Schematic representation [23. It took another 18 years before the diagram was expanded to include SG and compacted graphite (CG) iron (%Mg–V) [22] and then extended to incorporate white iron (%Ce–G/V) [23]. both temperatures decrease. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333 Fig. for the GWT. while at higher cooling rates it solidifies white. This interpretation is consis- tent with the results of phase-filed modeling [29] shown in Fig. Consequently. This information was used to correlate microstructure to the beginning and end of the eutectic solidification.26] and (b) DS experiments [27]. The compositional variable was sulfur. Using the knowledge accumulated from DS experiments performed by others as well as by themselves. the solidification microstructure is gray. Alternatively. since the slope of Tst is steeper than that of Tmet . 7a. the concepts developed for particle engulfment and pushing may be used. a critical velocity for the white-to-gray transition and one for the gray-to-white transition were defined. 7. Oldfield’s name surfaces again when attempting to understand the influence of a third element on the stable (Tst ) and metastable (Tmet ) temperatures.4. Magnin and Kurz [31] further developed this concept by using solidification velocity rather than cooling rate as a variable. and some ideas from the earlier work of Rickert and Engler [25]. Stefanescu and collaborators [23. [14] and [28] are suggested. Oldfield [6] demonstrated that Si increases the Tst − Tmet interval. The austenite growing into the liquid will tend to grow anisotropically in its preferred crystallographic orientation (Fig. However. which infers that a precipitating gas phase provides the phase boundary required for graphite crystallization. to understand the interaction between austenite dendrites and graphite nodules in the early stages of solidification. while chromium decreases it.

LG iron expands about 0. 9. Critical cooling rate for the GTW transition. Melt control The progress in the understanding of the correlation between the solidification microstructure and temperature undercooling generated interest in the possibility of using cooling curves (CC) to predict not only the chemical composition but even the microstructure. and that this is directly related to the change in microstructure from LG. which is the cooling rate. Dimensional variation during solidification Soon after the discovery of SG iron researchers noted that its dimensional variation during solidification is quite different than that of LG iron. (c) eutectic austenite dendrite and SG aggregate [28] and (d) simulated no anisotropy [29].D. Hillert [33] explained this surprising finding by noting that most graphite forms when surrounded by austenite. Other researchers followed [40] and attempted to use the CC and its derivative to predict microstructure details such as 80% nodularity [41] and then the latent heat of fusion [42]. specific volume calculations suggest that graphite expansion should be the same for FG and SG irons. (b) simulated high anisotropy [29]. SEM images of dendrites and SG iron in microshrinkage regions (left) and phase-filed calculated images of dendrites (right). in spite attempts to improve the standard Newtonian analysis [43] or to use Fourier analysis [44]. to attempt to precisely identify the points of interest on the CC such as beginning and start of solidification. [35]. Naro and Wallace [36] showed that eutectic undercooling continuously decreases as the cerium addition to the iron increases. Some 20 years later. In 1972 Rabus and Polten [39] used the first derivative of the CC. 3. to white. This expulsion occurs because SG iron undergoes mushy solidification while LG iron solidifies with a skin (Fig. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333 327 Fig. 8. 10). (a) Primary austenite dendrite [28].M. to SG. This proved to be an elusive goal. Yet. while no significant expansion occurs in SG iron because of mass expulsion into the riser.2–0. After initial work by Loper et al. In 1954 Gittus [32] measured the expansion of SG iron over the eutectic interval and showed that it was five times higher than that of LG iron. Then.5.6. Today CC analysis is a standard control tool in iron foundries for evaluating the chemical composition as well as graphite Fig. This proved to be a significant discovery since it is currently used for process control in at least two patented technologies for the manufacturing of CG iron. Graphite expansion occurring during solidification imposes considerable plastic deformation on the austenite. it was found that compacted graphite (CG) iron solidifies with larger recalescence than either LG or SG iron [37.5% during eutectic solidification. using a different experimental device that included a riser feeding the test casting. 3. Margerie [34] found that .38].

He developed a model for the cooperative growth of a eutectic spherical grain of LG and austenite. Schematic illustration of solidification mechanisms of continuously cooled lamellar and spheroidal graphite cast iron [14]. and using a displacement transducer to simultaneously measure temperature and dimensional variation (Fig. inoculation efficiency. Critical innovations in the development of mathematical models for cast iron In this section we will present a summary of the main analytical and computational models developed for cast iron. As both the CC and the dimensional variation are strong indicators of the phase transformation occurring in the solidifying alloy. This constant must be postulated (guessed) which limits the generality of the model. 11. but that a larger spacing will also exist. λbr can be calculated as the product between a function of the physical constants of the faceted phase and a material constant. The model assumed diffusion controlled steady-state growth of graphite through the γ shell.87 × 10−11 T/rGr .1. 4. and that branching occurs when a depression forms on the faceted phase. Fig. when Magnin and Kurz [50] proposed their irregular faceted/non-faceted eutectic model assuming non-isothermal interface. 11). This model has survived the test of time and is used today in most computational models for microstructure evolution. dictated by a branching condition. [48]. A similar approach was promoted later by Yang and Aalhainen [46] that even used the derivative of the dimensional variation curve to predict the amount of carbides. Analytical modeling of cast iron Two years after the development of the Jackson–Hunt model for regular eutectics. 10. . [45] combined the two methods by adding quartz rods to a standard sand cup for CC. cooling rate. To impose a non-isothermal coupling condition over the interface. which is that it could only be used for directional solidification. The irregular nature of the LG-γ eutectic was not confronted until 1987. They further assumed that the γ phase that has a diffuse interface grows faster than the graphite phase that is faceted. they ascribed a cubic function. It outputs 20 of the most important thermal parameters of the CC. Results of measurement of temperature. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333 Fig.328 D. shrinkage propensity and others.M. λbr . They demonstrated that the smallest spacing of the lamellar eutectic is dictated by the extremum condition. The ATAS equipment developed by NovaCast has the added feature that it can store information developed in a specific foundry and incorporate it into an expert system. Stefanescu et al. The first analytical model to describe growth of the eutectic in SG iron was proposed in 1972 by Wetterfall et al. The model predicted that the correlation between solidification velocity and lamellar spacing obeys the relationship λV1/2 = 4 × 10−6 . Under the assumption that the ratio between the radii of γ and graphite remains constant during solidification. The method proved to be very efficient in the characterization of graphite shape and was patented as part of a technology for CG iron production with in-process operative control. Tiller [47] attempted to avoid one of the limitations of the JH model. 4. This theoretical result was confirmed experimentally by Lakeland in 1968. shape. and dimensional variation for a CG iron. the equation derived for the growth velocity of graphite was simplified by Svensson and Wessen [49] to drGr /dt = 2.

and λiso = λex (spacing at which the interface is isothermal equal to the one derived from the extremum criterion). in 1966 developed a computer model that could calculate the cooling curves of LG iron (Fig. A third paper followed in 1978 when Aizawa [56] used Oldfield’s model to examine the Fig. At the same time and using similar procedures. The model relaxes the assumption of isothermal interface and accounts for the density difference between the liquid and the two solid phases. Experimental and calculated cooling curves. who.52] proposed a modified Jackson–Hunt model for eutectic growth applicable to both regular and irregular eutectics. Lacaze et al. calculating for the first time the room temperature microstructure (Fig. [51. influence of nucleation and growth rate constants on the width of the mushy zone in LG and SG iron. M is the cylindrical bar modulus. correction for grain impingement against one another and against the wall. Calculated cooling curves (left) and fraction of phases (right). λSL (for the average undercooling of the S/L interface). Stefanescu and Kanetkar [59] included in the model primary and eutectic solidification. His seminal paper included many innovations including parabolic laws with experimentally derived constants for nucleation and growth of spherical eutectic grains. the author of this paper will have to take credit for this position. Four characteristic spacings for which the undercooling exhibits a minimum were identified: λ . Nobody ever remembers number 2 in any human endeavor. and a computer model for heat flow across a cylinder similar to FDM.M. It is remarkable that λiso = λex was derived without invoking the extremum criterion. 13. dotted lines are for ferrite [59].D. isothermal growth is not possible in all eutectic system. Fe–C alloys do not grow with an isothermal interface. Using an analytical model for heat transport and time stepping procedure to generate cooling curves. and a model for cylindrical shape CG. However. . while the average spacing by λGr .2. Oldfield’s model is indisputably the basis of the current advances in computational modeling of microstructural evolution during solidification. as well as the eutectoid transformation. [61] further improved the carbon diffusion model by solving for non-stationary diffu- Fig. λ . Computational modeling of cast iron—analytical heat transport + transformation kinetics The era of computational modeling of cast iron was started by the brilliancy of a scientist whose name has already been quoted several times in this paper. The next significant development in the field belongs to Fredriksson and Svensson [57. Validation against published experiments was also included. Spacing adjustment of irregular eutectics occurs through the branching of the faceted phase. It is that of Oldfield [53].58] who combined an analytical model for heat transfer with parabolic growth law for LG and white iron. Yet. carbon diffusion through γ shell for SG iron. The minimum spacing is determined by λSL . [60] modified the mass balance equation in the carbon diffusion model for SG iron to include calculation of the off-eutectic austenite. Fras et al. since in 1973 he was the first one to continue Oldfield’s work [54]. 13). Stefanescu and Trufinescu [55] studied the effects of inoculants on the cooling curves and the nucleation constants. Catalina et al. quenched iron sample and equations for nucleation and growth proposed by Oldfield [53]. 4. Full lines are for pearlite. They were also the first to introduce the Johnson–Mehl approximation for spherical grain impingement. Incremental improvements were contributed by various researchers. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333 329 Recently. 12). 12.

The basic equation was: fS = 1 − exp − 4π 3 3 NGr rGr + NFe3 C rFe3 C 3 where N is the number of grains and r is their radius. 15. Fredriksson et al.6% C. Computational modeling of cast iron—numerical transport + transformation kinetics The first coupled FDM energy transport–solidification kinetics model for SG iron was proposed in 1985 by Su et al. 0. Mampey [68] included fluid flow in the transport calculations. The next challenge of significant industrial interest was the prediction of the GWT. it was possible to output the solid fractions of gray and white eutectics. [28] or color etching microstructures in Refs. . and considering the ternary Fe C Si system. A few years later. 4. and performed some validation against experiment.3. The model included the nucleation and growth of the stable and metastable phases and accounted for microsegregation. Fig. carbon diffusion controlled growth through the γ shell. including diffusion in liquid. 14). Nastac and Stefanescu [67] produced a complete FDM model for the prediction of the GWT. Beltran-Sanchez and Stefanescu [71] improved on the previous model by including solidification of primary austenite grains and by initiating graphite growth once graphite nuclei came in contact with the austenite grains. It was not until 1991 that a FDM energy transport–solidification kinetics model for SG iron was extended to room temperature by Chang et al. Fig. 0. 0. 16. Not surprisingly. 14. and demonstrated the influence of mold filling on the final distribution of nodule count.05% P. [62] and Stefanescu and Kanetkar [63] approached it in 1986. and the influence of cooling rate and amount of Si on the gray-to-white and white-to-gray transitions (Fig. Yet experimental evidence suggests that more than one graphite spheroid is found in the eutectic austenite grains (see for example microshrinkage SEM images in Ref. graphite was allowed to grow through the diffusion-controlled growth mechanism. They validated model predictions against cast pin tests. [64]. 15).025% S cast iron [67]. They used Oldfield’s nucleation model. The model demonstrated such phenomena as the influence of Si segregation on the Tst − Tmet interval for gray and white irons. [65]. the first application of the CA technique to cast iron is due to Charbon and Rappaz [69] who used the classic model for diffusion-controlled graphite growth through the austenite shell to describe SG iron solidification. They modeled the γ ⇒ α transformation as a continuous cooling transformation and attempted some validation against experimental work. The influence of Si and initial cooling rate on structural transition in a 3. Calculated effect of fluid flow on the thermal profile of a cylindrical casting [68]. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333 sion. The reader will notice that each nodule is surrounded by an austenite grain. After contact. The first attempt to use a numerical model to predict the GWT appears to belong to Stefanescu and Kanetkar [66] who in 1987 developed an axisymmetric implicit FDM heat transport model coupled with the description of the solidification kinetics of the stable and metastable eutectics. compared filling simulation with experiment.330 D.70]). Two selected computer generated pictures at some intermediate fS and at fS = 1 are presented in Fig.5% Mn. He also illustrated the shifting of thermal center and the reduction of radial temperature differences when flow was included (Fig.M.4. [28. Computational modeling of cast iron—visualization of microstructure The transformation of the computer into a dynamic microscope that transformed cast iron into a virtual material was spearheaded by Rappaz and his collaborators with their application of the cellular automaton (CA) technique to microstructure evolution modeling. By including both the stable and metastable phases in the calculation of the fraction solid. 4. which was incorporated in ProCast.

The earlier developed model for SG iron was also used. Leube et al. Their model allows calculation of the average length of lamellae for all grains in one volume element and of the average of the longest graphite lamella. are we at the end of the road? Not so fast! While models can do a lot they are not yet transportable. carbide formation. J. in a clear departure of the older approaches in predicting mechanical properties from statistical models relying on composition and cooling rate. To support these contentions validation against industrial castings was offered. 16. Extensive validation by Caterpillar’s scientists proved that the model could be used as a reliable tool for quality control and design. Eliade. nodular). Computer software companies offer complete packages. It predicts graphite morphology (lamellar. while a modified Grifith model was implemented to .5. strength. Nakayasu. First a spherical symmetry model for growth of the eutectic grain of LG was developed. [73] used a control volume FDM model for heat transfer coupled to transformation kinetics models to predict room microstructure. and microstructure length scale (eutectic grain size. and elongation of SG iron was computed on the basis of the isostrain condition. For example. [3] E. Pearlite growth was simulated based on minimum growth rate of the Fe C X component systems. [2] J. Finally. A. 1978. 5. hardness was calculated as a function of microstructure and experimentally derived coefficients. After systematic validation of the various subroutines. solidification. Nechtelberger. So. Concluding remarks We believe that this review demonstrates that our knowledge of cast iron solidification has advanced to the point that few areas are still in need of research. It calculates the eutectoid transformation and thus final structure. assuming carbon diffusioncontrolled growth. They calculated the minimum spacing as per Jackson–Hunt. and cooling) using a micromodeling approach to investigate final structures and properties of iron casting. and average size of lamellae or number of nodules). Computational modeling of cast iron—mapping of mechanical properties Mapping of microstructure evolution through computational modeling made possible mapping of mechanical properties. 17) based on Johnson–Mehl-tesselation (Monte-Carlo simulation). Foundrymen’s Assoc. The model predicts properties such as hardness. Thus. Am. or from numerical models using criteria functions. The model accounts for inoculation and growth condition of specific alloys. yield and tensile strength and fracture elongation. A complete model for prediction of static mechanical properties of LG and SG irons was proposed by Catalina et al. we believe that the field has still potential for further development. [77] stated that Magmasoft offers integrated simulation of the entire process (mold filling. Comparison between experimental and simulated LG iron grain structure in cylindrical rods of various diameters [72]. and many physical properties are poorly known. Then a carbon diffusion-controlled growth model for ferrite growth and graphite thickening was perfected. Areas of interest remain nucleation. calculate the strength of LG iron. Proceedings of the 49th International Foundry Congress. Svensson et al. The University of Chicago Press. [72] derived a branching criterion from the Magnin–Kurz model for irregular eutectics to calculate the maximum spacing in FG iron. Chicago. The hardness. 4.D. 1 (1896).M. in a recent paper. they were implemented in Caterpillar’s comprehensive simulation tool–CAPS. we must mention a model by Leube and Arnberg [76] that claims prediction of tensile strength from fraction of austenite and average of maximum graphite flake length. This is because nucleation model are still highly empirical. type. [74. meaning that considerable calibration is required for the conditions specific to the particular foundry.75]. von Nesselrode. Fig. Paper 1. Puhr. Weber et al. 1982. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333 331 Fig. CIATF. 17.B. H. References [1] M. The Forge and the Crucible. Then. An interesting innovation was the simulation of the eutectic grain structure (Fig. Virtual solidification microstructures of SG cast iron. and semi-solid processing. metal-mold interface interactions. Simulation of microstructure and properties has also made gigantic strides.

M. M. in: H. 103 (1995) 329–337.S. Berlin. p. Georgi Publishing Co.). Margerie. T. L. Fredriksson. Lux. Stefanescu. St. 443. Les Ulis. E 57 (4) (1998) 4323. Switzerland. Curreri. Stefanescu. New York. Ohnaka. New York. 273–284. p. New York. 78 (1970) 229–238. W. Aalhainen.D. 723. D. C. [14] D. W. Liu.). A. [40] P.M. D. Rappaz. Stefanescu. PA. [52] A. [65] S. Bayuzick (Eds. Warrendale. in: H. [59] D. Mater. 1975. Mollard (Eds. [67] L.. [30] H. 371. The Metallurgy of Cast Iron. The Metallurgy of Cast Iron. 153–162.).E.M. H. Stefanescu.M. [22] D. PA. F. 34. (1972) 323. Shah. S. Fredriksson. The Metallurgical Soc. Beltran-Sanchez. H. The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron. M. 1979. [13] J.. K. Georgi Publishing Co. The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron. J. Loper Jr. North-Holland. D. [36] R. Fredriksson. in: B. Tierean. pp. France. AFS Trans. p. Stefanescu. Popescu.M. 1986.V. Develop. Saphorin. Trans. Modeling of Casting. W. Minkoff. W. I. Rickert. 303.M. Kurz.). IL. American Foundry Soc.M. Recent Research on Cast Iron. 255–266.). 73–88. [47] W. p.J. Aizawa.). L. Scitec Publications. (1972) 323.). [50] P. Rabus.L. Srolovitz (Ed.). Kanetkar. F. Jacobs. in: G. in: D. [12] B. Proceedings of the 46th International Foundry Congress.M. Wessen. Mollard.A. AFS Trans.X. 1985. Freiberg Forschungs 105 (1965) 267. L. S. 1968. Wetterfall. Ph.D. Oldfield. Lux. in: H. pp. J. 165. Switzerland. pp. Su. Hochweriges Gusseisen.). 1942. Les Editions de Physique. Gordon and Breach. Bandyopadhyay. in: B. Lacaze. Castro. I. 1989. Stefanescu. (1987) 139–144. J. [7] B. Nieswaag. [11] K. Georgi Publishing Co. [20] S.W. [17] J. pp. Oldfield. Polten. Hillert. Kusakawa. Recent Research on Cast Iron.. Hillert (Eds. The Solidification of Hypoeutectic Cast Iron. 2002. Lux. Solidification Processing of Eutectic Alloys. Merchant. Acta Metall. S. W.-J. p. St.. 59 (1966) 945. J.Sc. Fredriksson. Proceedings of the Materials Research Society. New York. 1991. Rappel. Merchant (Ed. Jones. The Metallurgy of Cast Iron. u [19] S. Vol.D. Mollard (Eds. New York.). 1975. Hillert. in: B. Technol. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron V. J. The Metallurgical Soc.. New York. Gordon and Breach.V. C. Metall.E. [60] J. Polytechnic Institute of Bucharest.H. Yeger. I. Ohira. Stefanescu. Switzerland. CIATF. C. Trans. 1985. in: H. Merchant (Ed. Iron Steel Inst. 11A (1980) 1265. Editura Lux Libris. in: H. The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron. Lacaze (Eds. Recent Research on Cast Iron. Patterson. 443. D. Nilsson. 473–478. p. Mollard (Eds. p. Stefanescu. 1974. Saphorin. Abbaschian. in: H. in: B. B. Mollard a (Eds. [18] E. M.J. New York. pp. 69–79. Fredriksson. 1985. Mollard (Eds. Kanetkar. St. Elsevier. D. [25] A. I. Hillert (Eds. Gittus. Gordon and Breach. 263–272. in: M. (Eds. Phys. Fredriksson (Ed.K. D. Serban (Eds. Switzerland. D. Welding and Advanced Solidification Processes VIII. 98 (1990) 483–488.M.). AFS 105th Casting Congress. G. Switzerland. 267–275.).). I. Proceedings of the Materials Research Society.M. Gruzleski. in: D. Stefanescu. [4] E. I. [43] J. Metall. in: D.). Lux. Switzerland. Sci. Sch¨ bel. Weis. pp. 75 (1967) 541. B¨ ckerud. State of the Art of Computer Simulation of Casting and Solidification Processes.J. T.C. Warrendale. Minkoff. C. D. in: H. p.A. K. AFS Trans. [34] J.J. Lieu. Fredriksson. Fredriksson.). 37. 1968. 1988.M. J. R.M. PA. [27] Y.D. 1974. North-Holland. I. 101 (1993) 505–511. C.A.. p.M. Minkoff. F. Trans. p. [42] K. AFS Trans.M. Chang. 215. Svensson. Metall. F. 181–189. (Eds. [6] W. [26] D. M. Chen. North-Holland. Hillert (Eds. p. PA. The Metallurgy of Cast Iron. in: B. The Metallurgical Soc. Springer-Verlag. BCIRA J. M. M. Gordon and Breach. Stefanescu. p. Giesserei Technisch-Wissenschaftliche Beihefte 23 (1959) 1247–1275.. [57] H. I. 1985. Sadocha. E. The Science of Casting and Solidification. Steen. p. Iron Steel Inst. Ruxanda. Stefanescu. PA. Trufinescu. Stefanescu. 1975. AFS Trans. Warrendale. New York. Lux. [28] R. H¨ tter. Croos. Lakeland. Minkoff. Recent Research on Cast Iron. in: H. in: H. AFS Trans. [66] D. Pittsburgh. 1968. Dinescu. Recent Research on Cast Iron. Burbielko. in: H. Merchant (Ed. S. Saphorin. F. [21] K. M. 433–438. F.). Li. in: G. Giesserei 61 (1974) 615–618. Argo. [45] D. [9] M. Recent Research on Cast Iron. The Metallurgical Soc. Karma. Scitec Publications. Mollard (Eds.. T. 129. A. et al. Yamauchhi. Beckermann (Eds. Minkoff. H. [23] D.D.. 1998.P. Biswal. T. Scheil. [53] W. Merchant (Ed. Fredriksson.J. Elsevier. [10] T. 1986. Fukusako.). p. Engler. Svensson. Fras. Fredriksson. S. Dissertation. D. Mampey.C. Fredriksson. Georgi Publishing Co. 1997. 1–100. Hillert (Eds. Modeling of Casting. 151. Niyama (Eds. pp. October. Kurz. [24] H. Magnin. pp. Welding and Advanced Solidification Processes V. Warrendale. 9 (1974) 610. Lux.).).. J. A. M. in: B.C. Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron IV.).M. Strizik. pp. Thomas.).G. F. Lopez. I. Craciun. [56] T. I. Hillert (Eds.D. 1968. 5 (5) (1954) 264–277. Campbell (Eds. [16] H.D. Technol. [49] I. A. in: B. The Metallurgy of Cast Iron. Lux. p. Piwowarsky. Minkoff. Hillert. C. Lacaze (Eds. Hillert (Eds. Heine.G. 2001.O. Proceedings of Cast Iron Division. 1975. in: B. Spain. Massone. PA.L. Saphorin. 1968. Catalina.M. 2321 and 2347. Imono 50 (1978) 33. 1968. E. pp. 22A (1991) 915. Gordon and Breach.. in: G. [44] E. Merchant (Ed. o Gordon and Breach. Welding and Advanced Solidification Processes VII. Karsay. Des Plaines. Stefanescu. [38] D. 97 (1989) 61–66. M. Metall. The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron. . Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333 [37] L. Svensson. 495–508. M. Minkoff. Z. St. Tokyo. D.M. in: H. [15] B. 151. in: H.). 34A (2003) 383–394.332 D. Minkoff. Lesoult. 2001. Minkoff. Thesis. Met.M. J. St. Modeling of Casting.F. in: H. Sen. Saphorin. ASM Trans. The Metallurgical Soc. Wallace. D. Skaland. Tiller.T.. in: H. Les Ulis. L. Ruxanda.J. 1973. Yang. Burbielko. Computer Simulation of Microstructural Evolution. Eisenhuttenwesen 4 (1953) 24. Melford. Upadhya. 44.D.).).D. Barlow. Manchester University. [32] J. Proceedings of the Materials Research Society. Magnin. Sen.S. Zuithoff. [5] W. Georgi Publishing Co.M. Law. Mater. [68] F. Kapturkiewicz. [61] E.R. Saphorin. F. State of the Art of Computer Simulation of Casting and Solidification Processes. [33] M. p.E. L. [31] P. Stefanescu.. [46] Y. Grong. Stefanescu. [48] S.. [55] D. [58] H. S. The Metallurgy of Cast Iron. The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron. 24A (1993). Science and Engineering of Casting Solidification. Vol.R.F. Merchant (Ed.L. R. pp.D. Mollard. Stefanescu.D. 1961. Shangguan. Wetterfall. M.). [62] H.E. Lesoult. Warrendale. Georgi Publjishing Co. Thorgrimsson. p.). Giesserei Rundshau (9) (1972) 1–8. Switzerland. pp. W. Hogan. Switzerland. Lux. J.M. Merchant (Ed. AFS Trans. Lesoult. 1985. Rev. 10 (2) (1986) 1019. The Metallurgy of Cast Iron. Stefanescu.M. 35 (1987) 1119. Selig. [51] A. Stefanescu. [63] D. Grong. 92 (1984) 947. Lux. 101. Switzerland. Naro. P. 327. Svensson. Fredriksson.G. 1995. Les Editions de Physique. The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron. [39] D.A. AFS Trans. Fras. M. Metall. Elsevier. in: H. [8] W. 1997. 1 (Part II) (1974) 490. pp. 417– 448. D. Physical metallurgy of Cast Iron V. Herfurth. S. Kurz. Ammann. 1968. Loper. Trans. 27.K. 679– 686. 241. Saphorin. Recent Research on Cast Iron. 171–188.).). Gordon and Breach. H. Arch. 625. J. Thury. [64] K. 34. Brasov. Georgi Publishing Co. pp. Kanetkar. Kapturkiewicz. St. 1985. 1985. Nastac. I. Catalina. C. pp. Madrid. [41] I. France. F.P. L.M. I. Gruzleski.).). [35] C. J.). R. Fredriksson (Ed. 105 (1997) 349–354. AFS Trans. New York. Stefanescu. Stowell. M. M. Res. St. 1974. G. [54] D. et al. in: M. [29] A. Lux.

pp. . Res. Sturm. L.. Chuzhoy. Switzerland. R. Svensson. L. 463. Stefanescu. in: T. PA. Mater. Modeling of Casting. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413–414 (2005) 322–333 [69] Ch. Physical metallurgy of Cast Iron V. L. Trans. Charbon. Arnberg. Scitec Publications. A. Beckerman (Eds. 4–5 (1997) 169. 455–462. D. J. L. 1997. D. 1997. Res. [73] I. Stefanescu. [71] L. L. 35A (2004) 2471–2486. M. Gonzalez. 1998. 11 (1999) 507–514. Voller. D. PA. J. Sahm. Guo. pp. AFS Trans. Rappaz. Weber. Catalina.).M.).. M. 1993. Arnberg. in: T. [70] G. Wessen.S.). 453–460. The Metallurgical Soc. Piwonka. Mai. B. Leube. Catalina. Chuzhoy. C. 29–36. Boeri. Int. J. J. Voller. PA. The Metallurgical Soc. Mater.M.). Lacaze (Eds. X. Welding and Advanced Solidification Processes. Rivera. Welding and Advanced Solidification Processes VIII. V. A.D.S.M. The Metallurgical Soc. Metall. Warrendale. V. Pershing. Cast Met. Beltran-Sanchez.G.A.C. Lesoult. Adv. J. Warrendale. A. Katgerman (Eds.R. Modeling of Casting. M. in: B. in: G. Scitec Publications. R.. Stefanescu. Lesoult.L.A. in: G. Thomas. [72] B. Katgerman (Eds. Modeling of Casting. R. M. Pershing. 108 (2000) 247–257. Piwonka. Leube. 105–128. pp. Warrendale. Sikora. pp. Welding and Advanced Solid- 333 [74] [75] [76] [77] ification Processes.). 1998. L. Lacaze (Eds. Switzerland. Guo. P. p.M. Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron V. X.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful