€ase Histories Pan 2ol2 ef Cast Iron Machineability Problems Five more actual cases reveal that cast iron ‘machining’ problems aren't necessarily foundry-related. s we de- seribed last month in the frst ofthis tw0- parte on cas iron ma Chinabilty case histo- ries, quite often iron “machinabiliy” prob- Jems are not related to the castings. This article features five additional foundry ‘case histories detail ingthe careful inves- tigation that must be taken to truly find the ability problems ‘The 10 case histo- ves that appear in these two articles were gathered and presented to the AFS Casting Congress as an AFS Cast Iron Division panel in 1995, Panelists include: Steve Gouka, AE. Goetze, Lake City, Minnesota; Greg Miskinis, Waupaca Foundry Plant 3, Waupaca, Wisconsin; Larry Helm, Blackhawk Foundry & Machine Co. Davenport, Iowa; Ray Staral, Grede Foundries Reedsburg Div. Reedsburg, Wisconsin; James Mullins, RTZ fron & Tanium, Beloit, Wis- consin; Scott Gledhill, Wauupaca Foundry Plant 4, Marinette, Wisconsin; and William Shaw, [ron Casting Research Insti tute, Columbus, Ohio, 6. Provided by RTZ tron & Titanium America Product: Grade 1 125 80-10 austempered duc: tile iron (ADD casting modern casting / June 1997 George M, Goodrich Bodycote Taussi, Inc Skokie, Minois Fig. 1. Described in case history 6, shown here are the microstructures of ADI at ‘ 7O0F () and ADI with transformed martensite. The martensite condition was solution to machin: created during highpressure drilling and caused “Tried” drill, Altering machin: ing eyelesallevlated the problem. 3.5% Carbon, 2.6% Silicon, 0.20% Mar ganese, 0.7% Copper and 0.25% Molyb- denum, Normal austemperingheat trea ent 1620F (882C) and 670 (354C) Section size was 1.6 in., and hardness was about 300 Brinell hardness (HB), Problem: The problem occurred ‘upon driling a 7/16 in, hole approxi- PEE Fig. 2. Case history 7 described a crankshaft that was cas st In 6545-12 ductile iron. Shown here are the microstructures for that ferritic grade (D ‘as well as a pearllte grade, which was what the machine shop was ‘sceustomed to machining for these pars, The 651512 tas to sf 0 be machined in this way, and ultimately the job was specifted for a better Chemistry consisted of suited materlal for the application, ‘mately 2 in. long. At first, thecustomersaid that the material was notvery machineable, which is somewhat true due to the high strength nature ofthe mate, Note:The cus- tomer had never ma- chined an ADI casting before.) However, at ter some trial and er tor, itwasable to tum and mill the castings afterheattratment. (It was ready tomachine beloreheattreatment, ‘until a consultant in: tervened and stated that doing so wasn’t necessary, provided that procedures were conrected.) However, there was sil one major problem—drilling—oneofthe most dit- ficult ofall machining operations. Dur ing the high pressure drilling operation, the matrix structure was actually being changed due to stress transformation of the high carbon-etained austenite in the matrix into martensite. This transformation produces much greaterwear-and ‘machiningresistant ma- lrix—martensite. Hence, the drilling nearly stops and soon the drill is “tried” Solution:Increasethe feed rate and slow the turning rate so that any material that is trans- formed will be removed as the transformation is oceurring, Thus, a hard ened layer won't devel op under the tool Struc- tures ate shovrn in Fig. 1 a7. Provided by RTZ Iron & Titanium Product: Ductile iron crankshaft. Problem: A manufacturer otdered a smallcrankshaltcasting from a found. ‘The specification of material was left to the founcy, which after considering the application, de- cided to produce the casting in a Grade 65. 2 ductile iron be- ‘cause the customer er roneously implied that the mode of failure would be due to bend: ing, which was associ- ated by the customer as having low ductility. This material would not be the conect choice where good fatigue strength and some wear resistance (Such as required in a crankshait) would be necessary Alter the castings were approved for initial dimensions, the foundry pro. duced a few thousand of the ductile tron crankshafis and sent them for ma. chining, The machine shop machined these castingsasit woulda harderpear- itic crankshaft material and found that ‘tcouldn'thold dimensionaltolerances 8 well as it did on the previous crank shafts. The relatively soft crankshalts made ftom the ferrite grade 65-45-12 2 Were actually moving due to excessive ‘machining pressures, Solution: Aftera numberof meetings between the customerand the machine shop, the crankshaft was changed toa ‘more appropriate material, The machin ing difficulty wasn't actually related to the casting quality but ‘leave Gk ee. make sure "2tilediotheseiec to dig into the facts every time a Problem occurs, Semmecmtesmemcncweicscicy tion of materials, Comments: The foundry should con: duct the investigation of the final use and re. ‘uirements ofa casting before assistingthecus- tomer with materialselection. Actually, in this instance, it was fortunate that the problem was caught in the ma- chineshopratherthan inservice, where iteould have caused premature failure in a final product. Figure 2 shows the comparisons of the microstructures, 8. Waupaca Foundry-Plant 4 Product: Ductile iron casting for a diesel braking system. Problem: Figure 3 shows the compo- fentand the extensive machining foro Passages and cylinder bores that was required. Inthe pas, high hardness prob. lems in the thicker section where the steps were located had caused the gun rill operation to wander. This hardness problem wasconected byincreas. ——, ] ing the cooling time in the mold, Yet after nearly a year of running this casting successfully without machining problems, the cus- ‘omer reported that the problem was back. Checking the casting revealed no high hardness, Solution: To alleviate the problem, the customer changed tools and re: Ported that the parts were machining fine. The customer related their find ings to the foundry as follows: This op- eration consists of a gun drill with an extemal guide, The toolis made of high speed tool steel. It has multiple flutes and coolant is flished through the tool {o remove drilings. The company had instituted a cost savings program by resharpening the bits themselves, ‘This panicular bit was found lo have a wrong. cut angle. Several more bits were found with thesame problemand resharpened, A different jig was made for sharpening and this issue was resolved, Comments: Make sure to dig into the facts every timea problem occurs. If thadbeenassumed thatthesame hard- ‘Ress problem was the cause for the difficulty, an extensive amount of time and money would have been spent on needless work, 9. A.E. Gootze Product: Class 35 gray iron cylinder liner. The part was 4 in, long, 2.5 in diameterand had awallsection of, 140 in. ItWwas not heat treated Problem: The inside diameter honed surface was too rough to meet specification, The appearance was not acceptable—it looked like itwas ull of pits or holes. This condition was re ferred to.as “open grained." The condi tion appeared at the start ofa basket of castings. Samples of the defective cast ings were analyzed in an oulside lab, ‘The material was abviously at fault “nothing had changed in the machin. ing process.” Samples were taken from “good” and. “bad” parts for comparative analysis, The chemistry, microstructure and hardness of both sets of samples were nearly identical, More castings were produced and machined and the “con. dition’ still existed. Although all of the information indicated that the prob. fem was centered around the machin- ing process, it was decided that the casting was stil al fault. Several experi. mental batches of castings were pro. duced with no success in reducing or eliminating the problem. ‘A consultant was hired to determine What the foundry was doing wrang to teate the “open grain” condition. He spent several days in the plant observ ing the operation and gathering samples, The samples were taken back ‘othe outside laboratory ancl analyzed, ‘modern casting / June 1997 resui “bad even diam ator, ance some: the m cause analy were stock belor Jem s: nifiea ered leit honin, ture « chany chang amou sleev: stone Sol stock f duced 0.0015, remov. also be make | helped faster.’ a tippe could 1 thehor tionapy grain” « surface increas: speeds robles, 10. Pr, Castir Instite Prod tion cor Prob! face fin face atte asshow: the bott able, Ne ence in twoborn tron mic Braphs i erations ModernThe consultant returned to the plantand explained his results: The “good” and ‘bad” parts are identical in ‘every aspect except for the surface finish on the inside diameter. The patts that ex hibit the “open grain” have fa tom or gouged appear: ance. In the lab’s opinion, something had changed in, the machining process to ‘cause the problem For two days, the ma- chining processwas.closely analyzed. Comparisons \were made of feed speeds, stock removal and tools, Based on examination of the casting via stereo- scope, conventional met allography, and finally SEM, itwas concluded that the machined surface problem wasnot related to the microstructure or prop- erties of the iron, The mi crostructure in both bores was predominantly ASTM ‘Type A, size 4-5 graphite flakes with an almost fully pearlitic matrix and mini- mai amounts of tree fer- rite, The casting hardness was approximately 207 HB externally and 179- before and alter the prob: Fig. 4. The problem In case history 10 was an unacceptable surface 187 HB internally. This Jem started. The only sig fntsh in the top bore surface of thls gray tron refrigerator housing. nificant difference uncov- structure and hardness level could be expected ered wasadecreased amountofstock a rough and final cut followed by hon: to permit the attainment of almost left on the inside diameter for the ing. The question was whether there any reasonable finish requirement honing operation. The surface tex- was any metallurgical difference in the using es ture of this stock had also been — two bores that would cause the differ. and pro stablished machining tools cedures, changed. The reason for these ence noted in surface finish. Because the microstructures of the ‘changes were to decrease the amount of time to hone the sleeves and reduce hone stone usage. Solution: The amount of stock for honing had been re- duced from 0.008in. persideto 0.0015in. Thespeedofthestock removal prior to honing had also been increased slightly to make the surface tougher. This helped the stones to “work” faster. These changesproduced a ripped and tom surface that could not be “cleaned up” by the honing process. Thiscondi- tionappearedas"pils” or “open rain” on the inside diameter surface, When the stock was increased and the operating speeds reduced, the “casting” problem disappeared. 10. Provided by Iron Product: Gray iron refrigera- lion compressor hexsng Problems Unaccepableaue face finish in the tap bore sure iSeatterhoning ofthe cat asshown nig The tnishon the bottom bore was accep able. Note the spparent ler ence in srace nish ofthe Iota Iwoborsinheseaning tng geo om enn story 1. tec SEM photgrphe fhe (a cbs oat toy ano he erence surface apioin ig 5 Machinngop- pearance and ie sve rence serng ne rpc Erationsontheboresincaded tarout om machin prior onl 50 Pee ae ‘modern casting /June 1997 twobores were essentially den: tical (as would be expected from the casting geometry), and since honing would not likely remove such coarse too! ‘marks, it was apparent that there was some diflerence in either the rough or final cuts of the twin bores. With this infor mation presented, the cus tomer agreed to review the machining operation as the likely cause of the problem. Solution: in this case, tools and procedures for the rough and! final cuts prior to honing were studied to determine the cause o/ the differencein these otherwise identical bores. ‘While coarse graphite, gener- ally due to excessive carbon ‘equivalent, can lead to graph: ite tearout on machined sur faces, this was clearly not in volved here. Machining pra tices thal can result in rough machinedsurfacesinclude dull tools and inadequate depth of cut, A number of references, including A.D. Lamb CMate- ial and Technical Factors in theMachiningofiron Castings, Gray and Ductile ron News. Apriland May issues 1967) sug: gest a minimum finish cut depth of 0.010in. to provide for ‘a good finished surlace. ‘Fora fro copy of his acl cco No ‘399en tne eador Acton Card 43