Factors Affecting Chemical analysis was conducted for the following elements:

carbon, silicon, manganese, phosphorus, sulfur, nickel, chromium,

Mechanical Properties of molybdenum, copper and magnesium. The ranges for these elements
in this study are shown in Table 1.
GGG 40.3 (Low-Temper- The requirements for this ductile iron grade were as follows:
ature Impact-Resistant • Impact strength @ -20C using an impact specimen per DIN
50115, U-notch, 10 ft-lb average with a minimum individual
Ductile Cast Iron) value of 8 ft-lb.
• Tensile strength, 58 ksi min.
• Yield strength, 36.25 ksi @ 0.2% offset min.
D.E. Kippola • Elongation, 18% min.
Giddings & Lewis Castings
To achieve these properties, Y-blocks were cast in the mold with the
Menominee, Michigan
casting and were subjected to the same full anneal heat treatment as
G.M. Goodrich the casting.
Professional Metallurgical Services
Buchanan, Michigan Preliminary testing in preparation for production revealed that
impact sample machining had an influence on the impact results.
First very little difference existed between impact strength deter-
mined on samples with Charpy V notch (ASTM) and the key hole
ABSTRACT
PIN 50115 U-notch. However, major differences between the ma-
Professional Metallurgical Services conducted impact tests, chining techniques used to form the notch were identified. When the
tensile tests and chemical analysis on 83 ductile iron Y-blocks as notch was broached, an estimated 30% of the impact bars failed the
part of an on-going project for Giddings and Lewis. Further impact requirements. When the notch was ground, in excess of 90%
analysis of this test data was conducted using statistical analy- of the bars passed the impact requirements. The results reported here
sis. Metallographic analysis on selected samples was also con- are all on ground notches.
ducted to evaluate the effects of a cerium addition. The purpose
for this analysis was to determine the factors that most influ-
enced the impact and tensile properties Table 1
Ranges and Correlation Factors for Foundry Data
The statistical analysis indicated that none of the elements
had a correlation with elongation for the composition range Correlation Correlation
represented with the 83 samples. Individually, the elements with with
silicon, aluminum and, perhaps, molybdenum had a limited Max Min Range Elongation Avg. Impact
correlation with average impact strength. However, using mul-
C 3.84 3.45 0.39 0.027 0.028
tiple regression analysis, a relatively good correlation with
elongation existed when the elements carbon, manganese, sili- Mn 0.23 0.13 0.10 0.013 0.094
con, copper, nickel, chromium, molybdenum and aluminum P 0.016 0.007 0.009 0.015 0.001
were considered. These same elements in combination exhibited S 0.013 0.003 0.010 0.000 0.007
a strong correlation factor with average impact strength, con- Si 2.81 1.74 0.87 0.050 0.209
sidering that the information was from production data. Cu 0.11 0.03 0.08 0.017 0.195
The conclusions from this analysis indicated that, as the Ni 0.79 0.53 0.26 0.002 0.016
silicon content increased, the aluminum content increased, al- Cr 0.045 0.034 0.011 0.011 0.061
most linearly. Since, individually, silicon had a relatively high Mo 0.013 0.004 0.009 0.015 0.142
correlation factor with average impact strength, the influence of
Al 0.042 0.006 0.038 0.030 0.216
the inoculant distribution was thought to have a major effect on
the resulting impact strength. Subsequently, additional studies Mg 0.080 0.041 0.039 0.017 0.024
indicated that distribution of the inoculant was not uniform. Y- CE 4.62 4.12 0.50 0.000 0.021
blocks that were placed in the mold runner system ahead of the Correlation Correlation
mold cavity contained more silicon from the inoculant than Y- Multiple with with
blocks placed in the mold runner system after the mold cavity. It Regression Elongation Avg. Impact
was also concluded from this analysis that the tramp element
level was influencing the impact property results. C,Si 0.081 0.247
Ni,Si 0.083 0.279

INTRODUCTION Ni,C 0.040 0.086

During the process of producing high-impact-resistant ductile cast C,Si,Ni 0.088 0.338
iron for a specific customer, several issues were resolved through (Cu,Mn,Cr,Mo,Al) 0.075 0.192
testing and data analysis to achieve consistent results. The castings
(C,Mn,Si,Cu,Ni,Cr,Mo,Al) 0.158 0.441
and the Y-blocks were subjected to a full anneal heat treatment
procedure. The details of this procedure are considered proprietary (C,Ni,Mo,Al) 0.105 0.263
and will not be included in this paper. The size of the castings
(Cu,Ni,Mo,Si) 0.094 0.381
depended on the part but, basically, ranged from 1600 to 5000 lb.

AFS Transactions 00-52 313

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
The data collected from the mechanical testing, impact testing and
chemical analysis of 83 ductile iron Y-blocks was analyzed statisti-
cally to determine if a correlation could be established between
composition and the required critical properties.
Previous investigators have demonstrated that silicon will ad-
versely affect low-temperature-impact strength. In this investiga-
tion, silicon in the range of 1.74-2.61% was determined to have a
0.209 correlation factor with the measured impact strength. For
reference purposes, a correlation factor of 1.000 would be considered
a perfect match and a correlation factor of 0.000 would be considered
a completely random match. When production data is evaluated, any
correlation factor >0.500 would be considered as a better than
acceptable correlation.
The 0.209 correlation factor between silicon and the impact data
was considered to be reasonably acceptable and representative of the
known effect that silicon has. Personnel at the foundry, however,
thought that a silicon level greater than 2.20% exceeded the amount
that could possibly be added, considering all the silicon sources. As
a consequence, a correlation between the silicon content and the
aluminum content was determined.
As the aluminum content increased for the first 40 sets of data, the
silicon content increased. This correlation is shown in Fig. 1. From
this correlation, it was determined that a non-uniform inoculant
distribution was occurring. When steps were taken to counter act this
effect, the correlation between the silicon and the aluminum was
Fig. 1. Silicon versus aluminum scatter diagram (first data).
Fig. 2. Silicon versus aluminum scatter diagram (first two sets of data).
314
more random. This corrective measure was taken during the produc-
tion of the Y-blocks that represent the last 43 sets of data. Consider-
ation of all 83 sets of data in Fig. 2 shows that a definite relationship
still existed between the silicon and aluminum, but the relationship
was more random.
Nothing in the multiple regression analysis was found to correlate
well with elongation. The highest correlation factor with elongation
was 0.156 when the effect of all eight elements was considered.
The best correlation in this investigation occurred when the effect
of carbon, silicon and nickel was considered on ultimate tensile
strength (0.695) and on yield strength (0.673). Figures 3 and 4 show
the plots that were developed comparing the actual property and the
predicted property using the formula that was developed with the
regression analysis. Figure 5 shows the poor correlation between the
predicted elongation and the actual elongation, considering the
effects of carbon, silicon and nickel.
Comparison of carbon, silicon and nickel with impact strength
resulted in a relatively good correlation factor of 0.338 (Fig. 6).
Comparison of carbon, manganese, silicon, copper, nickel, chro-
mium, molybdenum and aluminum resulted in the highest correla-
tion factor with impact strength of 0.441 (Fig. 7). Further analysis
revealed a good correlation factor of 0.381 between impact strength
and silicon, copper, nickel and aluminum (Fig. 8).
An additional comparison was made to evaluate the impact
strength data using a pass/fail mechanism for the comparison. In this
instance, the data was compared based on whether the average
AFS Transactions
impact strength was above or below 8 ft-lb, 9 ft-lb and 10 ft-lb.
Molybdenum was the only element that had averages that were
significant and statistically different using all three criteria.
Figures 9 and 10 show how the molybdenum affected the percent
of the readings that passed using the 8, 9 and 10 ft-lb criteria and the
Fig. 3. Actual vs. predicted ultimate (C, Si, Ni).
Fig. 4. Actual vs. predicted yield (C, Si, Ni).
Fig. 5. Actual vs. predicted elongation (C, Si, Ni).
AFS Transactions
effect molybdenum had on the average impact value. It is possible
that molybdenum was only acting as a tracing element and the actual
cause for this relationship has yet to be found. However, metallo-
graphic evaluations of the structures from impact bars have shown a
significant correlation with the occurrence of intercellular carbides
and low impact strength. It is a strong possibility that the occurrence
of intercellular carbides and the molybdenum content are related.
315
METALLOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Four ductile iron Y-blocks were subjected to routine chemical
analysis, mechanical testing and low temperature (-20C) impact
testing. Two of the Y-blocks, Sample 1 and Sample 2, represented
ladles that had been inoculated with the normal process at the
foundry. The other two Y-blocks, Samples 3 and 4, were inoculated
with a cerium-bearing inoculant. During testing, the Y Blocks
inoculated with the Ce-bearing inoculant displayed higher impact
strengths than the Y Blocks inoculated with the normal process. A
comparison of the composition, mechanical properties and the im-
pact strengths is provided in Tables 2 and 3.
Fig. 6. Actual vs. predicted impact (C, Si, Ni).
Fig. 7. Actual vs. predicted impact (8 elements).
Fig. 8. Actual vs. predicted impact (C, Ni, Mo, Al).
316
Additional information indicated that Samples 1 and 2 were from
one heat and that Samples 3 and 4 were from a second heat. The
chemical analysis and mechanical properties that are indicated in
Tables 1 and Table 2 confirmed this relationship.
Metallographic Test Results
Impact bars representing the Y-blocks were arbitrarily selected for
metallographic analysis. Visually, the fractured surfaces displayed a
white-specked appearance. The two Y-blocks from the normal
process, Samples 1 and 2, had more specks than the two Y-blocks
inoculated with Ce, Samples 3 and 4 (Fig. 11.)
AFS Transactions
 Fig. 9. Effect of molybdenum on passing criteria.

Fig. 10. Effect of molybdenum (average impact value).

Table 2
Chemical Analysis, Percent

Element Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Carbon 3.75 3.71 3.79 3.75
Manganese 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.15
Phosphorus 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.008
Sulfur 0.008 0.007 0.010 0.007
Silicon 2.09 2.02 1.98 1.95
Copper 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07
Nickel 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.62
Chromium 0.034 0.034 0.032 0.033
Molybdenum 0.011 0.011 0.007 0.007
Aluminum 0.011 0.011 0.009 0.009
Magnesium 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.049

Table 3.
Mechanical Properties

Properties Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4

Impact strength @
-20C, ft-lb 9,10,9 10,9,10 12,11,12 12,12,12
Tensile strength, ksi 59.7 59.1 58.2 58.1
Yield strength, 0.2% Fig. 11. Photograph of the fractured surfaces for the three
offset, ksi 40.9 40.7 39.7 39.5 selected impact bars. Sample 1 is the upper row. Samples 3
and 4 are lower two rows. Note the difference in the number of
% Elongation 21 22 22 22 white specks on the fractures.

AFS Transactions 317

 The selected impact bars were cut to provide cross sections. The
four samples were mounted in a Bakelite mold and were ground and
polished in accordance with standard metallographic procedures per
ASTM E3-95. The resulting samples were examined, unetched and
etched, with a metallurgical microscope at magnifications up to
560X. The purpose for this examination was to compare the micro-
structures.
Fig. 12. Photomicrograph of the graphite structure and matrix
distribution for Sample 1. Nodularity was rated 95% ASTM
Types I and II, with an estimated nodule count of 50/mm2.
110X. See Fig. 13 for a description of the matrix.
Fig. 13. Photomicrograph of the matrix structure for Sample 1.
The structure is essentially ferrite. The spheroidized inter-
cellular constituents are alloy carbides. Note the microvoids
associated with the carbides. 560X. This is the same area
shown at lower magnification in Fig. 12.
318
Unetched, all four samples exhibited acceptable nodularity, rated as
95% ASTM Types I and II graphite. Nodule count was estimated as
50 per mm2 for Samples 1 and 2 and 70 per mm2 for the cerium-
treated Y-blocks, Samples 3 and 4. Minor duplex graphite nodule
size was observed for all four Y-blocks. Representative graphite
structures can be seen in Figs. 12 and 14.
Fig. 14. Photomicrograph of the graphite structure and matrix
distribution for Sample 3. Nodularity was rated 95% ASTM
Types I and II, with an estimated nodule count of 70/mm2.
110X. See Fig. 15 for a description of the matrix.
Fig. 15. Photomicrograph of the matrix structure for Sample 3.
The structure is essentially ferrite. The spheroidized inter-
cellular constituents are alloy carbides. Note the microvoids
associated with the carbides. 560X. This is the same area
shown at lower magnification in Fig. 14.
AFS Transactions
 The etched structures revealed that all four Y-blocks had
spheroidized intercellular carbides in a predominantly ferritic ma-
trix. A significant difference in the quantity of spheroidized carbides
existed between the two groups. The cerium-treated Y-blocks,
Samples 3 and 4, had less carbides than the normally treated Y-
blocks, Samples 1 and 2. Figures 12-15 compare the etched micro-
structures. It should be noted that microporosity was associated with
these carbides.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the statistical analysis, we concluded that two
major factors had negatively influenced the impact strength of the
ductile iron Y-blocks. The first of these factors was a non-uniform
distribution of the in-the-mold inoculant. Apparently, the first metal
through the gating system received an extra amount of inoculant. A
Y-block placed off the mold cavity, where the initial metal entering
the cavity would fill it, was compared to a Y-block placed off the
cavity at the top of the mold, which would fill last. Presumably, the
last metal was a more homogenous mixture of all the metal entering
the cavity. The Y-block with the initial metal had more silicon (and
aluminum) than the Y-block filled with the last metal. The influence
of molybdenum was the second major factor. Intercellular carbides,
which can result from molybdenum (and probably other carbide-
forming elements) negatively influenced the impact strength.
A multiple regression analysis revealed that none of the elements
monitored in this investigation had a meaningful correlation with
elongation. However, relatively good correlation was found when
the carbon, silicon and nickel considered together were compared to
ultimate tensile strength, yield strength and impact strength. The
regression formulae for all of the comparisons are shown in Table 4.
Based on the results of the metallographic analysis, it was
concluded that the difference in impact strength between those Y-
blocks cast without cerium and those Y-blocks cast with cerium was
the consequence of a difference in the amount of intercellular
spheroidized carbides. Cerium in ductile iron is known to reduce the
effects of tramp elements. In this instance, the cerium in the inoculant
effectively reduced the intercellular segregation of tramp elements
and, consequently, reduced the formation of intercellular carbides.
These carbides can reduce both fatigue strength and impact strength.
Reducing the occurrence of these carbides can, as shown in this
investigation, improve the impact strength.

Table 4
Regression Formulas

Dependent Corre-
Variable Constant C Mn P S Si Cu Ni Cr Mo Al Mg lation

Impact: –2.557 . . . . 3.237 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.029

12.359 . . . . . . . . . . . –18.737 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.094
9.434 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –22.445 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.001
9.848 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –54.569 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.007
16.988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.663 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.209
11.714 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –33.248 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.195
11.852 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.730 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.018
14.586 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –137.875 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.061
11.127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –233.023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.142
10.886 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –108.603 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.216
7.784 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.743 . . . . . 0.024
3.836 . . . . 3.659 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.735 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.247
14.425 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.925 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.831 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.279
–8.003 . . . . 3.962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.349 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.088
–2.805 . . . . 4.627 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –4.060 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.577 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.338
14.288 . . . . . . . . . . . . –2.135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.578 . . . . . . . . . . . –72.886 –141.319 –22.438 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.192
17.449 . . . . 1.381 . . –6.691 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –4.059 . . . 9.872 . . –4.579 . . . 1.637 –124.943 –12.612 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.441
–6.947 . . . . 4.384 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.998 . . . . . . . . . –243.827 –21.443 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.284
15.790 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.706 . . 12.954 . . . 3.554 . . . . . . . . . –235.583 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.381

Yield: 28.532 . . . –2.827 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.305 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.288 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.673

Ultimate: 43.594 . . . –1.145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.391 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.789 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.695

Elongation: 27.478 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –4.037 . . . 6.488 . . –4.513 . . . . . . . . . . 183.891 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.094

–4.391 . . . . 6.966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –4.988 . . . . . . . . . . 124.235 –46.571 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.105
–5.506 . . . . 9.753 . . 13.671 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.281 . . . 2.534 . . . 5.080 –227.886 . 365.320 –26.525 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.158
27.904 . . . . . . . . . . . . –8.628 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –11.887 . . –3.088 –261.718 . 377.138 –35.255 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.075
5.982 . . . . 5.930 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.447 . . . . . . . . . . . –4.109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.088
1.099 . . . . 5.368 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –4.023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.040
27.508 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.274 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.083
2.141 . . . . 6.482 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.824 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.081
15.588 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.685 . . . . . 0.017
19.183 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –75.382 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.030
16.773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145.770 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.015
22.289 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –11.330 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.011
19.583 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –2.450 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.002
16.536 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.083 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.017
25.371 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.492 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.050
17.994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –3.865 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.000
16.028 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203.240 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.015
15.728 . . . . . . . . . . . 13.357 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.013
–4.074 . . . . 6.058 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.027

AFS Transactions 319

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the statistical analysis work that R.
Lobenhofer provided. We also wish to acknowledge the help of J.
Mullins and E. Muratore from Rio Tinto Iron & Titanium Co. and E.
320
Forsyth at Meehanite Corporation for the valuable assistance when
this work was first started. We also wish to acknowledge the
support and perseverance of Conam Inspection at their Gary,
Indiana facilities with the testing (and machining).
AFS Transactions