See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/298631412

Lightweight iron castings - Can they replace aluminum castings?

Article · September 2003

CITATIONS READS

8 394

2 authors:

Doru M. Stefanescu Roxana Ruxanda

The Ohio State University Emerson
391 PUBLICATIONS   5,317 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   334 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nucleation and growth of spheroidal graphite View project

CompCAST Plus View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Doru M. Stefanescu on 29 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the 65thWorld Foundry Congress, C. P. Hong et al. eds., The Ko-
rean Foundrymen’s Soc., Seoul, Korea (2002) 71-77

Lightweight Iron Castings – Can they Replace Aluminum

Castings?
Doru M. Stefanescu and Roxana Ruxanda

The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Al, USA

Abstract
The paper discusses the main reasons for the current trend of substituting cast
iron by aluminum in automotive applications. However, optimization analysis
demonstrates that cast iron is superior to aluminum in many automotive-type ap-
plications. The main reason for the substitution of cast iron seems to be the inabil-
ity or lack of interest of iron foundries to produce lightweight iron castings. Re-
cent research work at the University of Alabama has revealed that lightweight cast
iron parts can be produced using regular charge materials and commercial alloys
for liquid treatment. It was also found that the static mechanical properties of thin
wall (2.5 mm) ductile iron are superior or equal to the ASTM minimum values.
Background
The ever increase of worldwide automobile usage has resulted in the escala-
tion of the associated environmental problems. These include global warming, air
pollution, and acid rain, destruction of the ozone layer, and waste disposal. While
the solutions to these problems are numerous, the simple answer is increased fuel
economy. The advanced countries have implemented aggressive programs to
achieve this goal (Fig. 1 [1]). Direct improvements in fuel economy can be
achieved through greater engine or power train efficiency, as well as reduced air
resistance. Indirect improvements can be achieved through weight reduction.
As a direct consequence of the race for ever lower fuel consumption automo-
tive foundries are confronted with the pressure of developing new processes and
materials that reduce overall car weight, without sacrificing performance. To meet
these needs, automakers have increasingly turned to lighter weight materials, and
castings continue to be a prime target. This is why some ferrous markets have
been lost during the last 15 years to aluminum and other less dense materials.
Is this market segment forever lost for the ferrous metal casters? This paper
will try to provide arguments for a negative answer to this question.
Why aluminum castings are displacing iron castings
Aluminum has been the material of choice for a large number of automotive
components because of its low density, its reciclability through currently available
processing routes, and lower energy requirements during use and post-use as
compared with ferrous materials. The aluminum share in European-made automo-
biles has risen from about 5wt.% to about 20wt.% in nearly one decade. In North
America, the average Al content in automobiles has almost doubled in the same
period. Producers are addressing factors that have been barriers to acceptance of
the light metals such as the form-ability, corrosion-resistance, joining, high-
temperature resistance, thermal-cycle fatigue life of Al heat-exchanger materials.
Proceedings of the 65thWorld Foundry Congress, C. P. Hong et al. eds., The Ko-
rean Foundrymen’s Soc., Seoul, Korea (2002) 71-77

Why iron castings should replace aluminum castings

The answer to this question can be obtained by conducting optimization anal-
ysis on the two competing materials. The objective of optimization when choosing
a material is to optimize a number of performance metrics (P) in a particular
product. Typical metrics for the problem at hand are cost, mass, fatigue resistance,
strength, stiffness, etc. A first approach to optimization is to directly compare se-
lected properties of the competing materials, or, when the weight is important as
in our case, the specific property of the material (property/density).
For example, we can use fatigue strength as an optimization parameter. The
ability of a material to withstand long term cyclic stress is typically described by
the stress (S) - number of cycles (N) curve (Fig. 2). As long as the total service
load experienced by a material stays below its S-N curve fatigue failure is unlike-
ly. It is seen that aluminum alloys exhibit a lower S-N curve than ductile iron (DI)
above 107 cycles that is in the range of high-cycle fatigue (each loading cycle only
deforms the material elastically). In addition, cast iron exhibits a fatigue limit
(stress under which failure does not occur regardless of the number of cycles),
while aluminum does not. More importantly, the specific stress of DI is superior
to that of aluminum alloys when the number of cycles exceeds 107 (Fig. 3).
The more detailed analysis based on data from ref. [2 - 5] presented in Fig. 4
shows that die cast alloys have similar fatigue resistance as ferritic ductile irons,
but even the premium A357 die cast alloy cannot compete with pearlitic iron.
Note that all aluminum alloys presented in this graph are solution treated. The fa-
tigue strength of tempered and austempered DI exceeds several times that of solu-
tion treated as cast aluminum alloys.
Another property of particular interest for automotive parts is the strength at
elevated temperatures. As shown in Fig. 5, at temperatures above 200 oC the spe-
cific strength of ductile iron rapidly overtakes that of aluminum alloys. Thus, for
high temperature applications (e.g., engine parts) DI is a better choice than Al.
A more detailed optimization analysis must include the particular function of
the product. Then, the metrics depend on the geometry of and the constrains im-
posed on the product. More complicated equations that define a material index are
developed [6], as exemplified in Table 1. The values of the performance metric
for competing materials scale with the material index. By using this concept, se-
lection of a material becomes a simple case of identifying the index characterizing
the performance metrics, and choosing materials with the smallest value. For ex-
ample, examining the data in Fig. 4, the best material is austempered DI having a
density/fatigue strength = 0.14-0.18, while sand cast Al alloys are in the range of
0.41 to 0.5.
When there are two or more optimization objectives, solutions rarely exist
that optimize all at once. They are normally measured in different units, and any
improvement in one is most likely at the loss of another. One way of optimizing
several objectives is to compare the materials in a P1 – P2 graph, where P1 and P2
are the metrics of the two objectives. An example is provided in Fig. 6 for mass-
cost optimization for four different applications. The slopes of the parallel lines on
the graphs are drawn such that a unit increase in P1 corresponds to a unit increase
in P2. For all applications in this example, cast iron is either clearly superior, or
slightly superior to Al alloys, since the values for cast iron are closer to the origin
of the graph.
Proceedings of the 65thWorld Foundry Congress, C. P. Hong et al. eds., The Ko-
rean Foundrymen’s Soc., Seoul, Korea (2002) 71-77

This analysis demonstrates that in applications where mass and cost are the
objective of optimization cast iron should be selected over aluminum alloys. The
main reason why aluminum is replacing cast iron in automotive applications
seems to be the inability or lack of interest of iron foundries to produce light-
weight iron castings, that is iron castings with thin walls.
Development of technology for light weight iron castings
A consortium of foundries and foundry suppliers and the Metal Casting
Competitiveness Program of the U. S. Department of Energy have sponsored a
three-years research project at the University of Alabama. The research was suc-
cessful in developing significant aspects of the technology for thin wall ductile
and compacted graphite (CG) iron castings. The project opened market opportuni-
ties for iron foundries by demonstrating that ductile and compacted iron castings
can compete successfully on the basis of weight, performance, and cost with
lightweight materials as well as other competing manufacturing methods.
Extensive experimental work was conducted to establish the tensile properties
and hardness of thin wall ductile iron castings [7]. First, the optimum chemical
composition and liquid treatment to obtain carbide free DI on unrisered horizontal
thin plates (100x25 mm, 1.5 to 7 mm thick) cast in green sand were established.
Then, tensile properties and hardness were measured on the as-cast plates. It was
found that while the potential tensile properties exceeded the ASTM standard for
as-cast ductile iron, a large number of plates exhibited lower properties than the
ASTM minimum. Upon detailed investigation, it was concluded that these lower
values could be attributed to solidification anomalies. Consequently, a casting
with vertical plates was designed for soundness, using mold filling and solidifica-
tion simulation (Fig. 7). The thickness of the plates from bottom to top is 6, 2.5,
3.5 mm. As demonstrated by the simulation, all plates are filled quiescently and
the temperature is significantly above the solidus before filling is completed.
After soundness verification on several experimental castings, a large number
of vertical plates were cast in resin-bonded molds and analyzed for microstructure
and mechanical properties. The charge materials included 20% Sorel pig iron,
40% ductile iron returns, and 40% steel scrap. The carbon equivalent ranged from
4.04 to 4.68%. A Ce-containing 6% Mg alloy and a Ce-containing post-inoculant
were used for liquid treatment.
The results of tensile tests on as-cast and machined plates are presented in
Fig. 8. It is seen that all data on machined plates exceed the ASTM specification,
while the data on plates that had two as-cast surfaces are, in most cases, under the
ASTM minimum. A direct relationship was found between surface roughness and
the tensile strength. This demonstrates the importance of surface finish in thin
wall DI. For the range of thickness investigated (2.5-6 mm), no significant influ-
ence of the cooling rate on the tensile properties was observed [7].
Extensive work with instrumented castings has generated relationships be-
tween the thickness of the plates and cooling rate. It was demonstrated that, de-
pending on the feeding and the amount of metal flowing through the plate, the
cooling rate in a given section could change by a factor of three. For example, in a
2.5 mm plate the cooling rate can vary between 8.2 and 32.5 K/s. This implies that
through intelligent design, castings having sections as thin as 1.5 mm could be
cast in ductile iron free of carbides.
Proceedings of the 65thWorld Foundry Congress, C. P. Hong et al. eds., The Ko-
rean Foundrymen’s Soc., Seoul, Korea (2002) 71-77

Using the technology developed during this research, carbide-free microstruc-

tures were consistently obtained at cooling rates of up to 30 K/s, and as-cast ferrit-
ic microstructures at cooling rates of 10 K/s and above. Thus, carbide-free sec-
tions can be produced at cooling rates four to five times higher than currently used
in iron casting. This leaves the door open for the control of the matrix microstruc-
ture to give a variety of properties, as desired by designers.
Extensive metallographic work demonstrated [8] that the shape factors cur-
rently used in the evaluation of graphite shape in cast iron are pixel dependent,
and cannot be used indiscriminately. To compare results obtained in different la-
boratories it is necessary to use a narrow range of pixel size. The appropriate pixel
size depends on the dimensions of graphite particles. Based on comparisons with
visual standards it was concluded that the optimum pixel size for graphite shape
evaluation in thin wall DI and CG iron castings is 0.5-0.6 m.
Recommended practices for metallographic characterization were established
for thin-wall DI. Reference photographs for nodule count from 800 to 2000 nod-
ules/mm2 have been produced. Regression equations that allow calculation of vis-
ual nodularity from shape factors obtained through image analysis have been gen-
erated. Sphericity emerged as the shape factor of choice for ductile and CG iron
when conducting image analysis on thin castings.
Carbide-free CG iron with nodularity less than 20% was produced through
Mg-Ti ladle treatment and Al postinoculation at cooling rates of up to 19 K/s [9].
Carbide-free CG iron was also produced with a Ti-free in-mold process at cooling
rates in the same range. The in-mold treatment allowed precise control of the re-
sidual Mg.
Finally, two benchmark experiments were performed for validation of com-
mercial mold filling and solidification models. The first one consisted in position-
ing open thermocouples in the plate-mold cavity to determine the exact time when
the liquid metal reaches that particular position. The second experiment consisted
in performing 580 metallographic evaluations on the plates to develop a micro-
structural map for thin ductile iron plates.
Proceedings of the 65thWorld Foundry Congress, C. P. Hong et al. eds., The Ko-
rean Foundrymen’s Soc., Seoul, Korea (2002) 71-77

Tables

Table 1 Materials indices for different applications

Function Example Objective Constrain Index
tie cable support min. weight stiffness ρ/E
beam aircraft wing min. weight stiffness ρ/E1/2
panel automobile door min. weight stiffness ρ/E1/3
beam auto suspension arm min. weight strength ρ/σy2/3
panel table top min. weight strength ρ/σy1/2
ρ: density, E: Young’s modulus, σy: yield strength

Figures

Fig. 1. Reduction in average fuel

consumption in US and Europe [1].

700

600

500
Stress, MPa

400

300
Al DI
200

100

0
1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07 1.E+09
Cycles to failure

Fig. 2. Typical applied stress (S) – cy- Fig. 3. Typical specific stress – cycles
cles to failure (N) curves for cast alu- to failure curves for cast aluminum al-
minum alloys and ductile iron. loys and ductile iron.
Proceedings of the 65thWorld Foundry Congress, C. P. Hong et al. eds., The Ko-
rean Foundrymen’s Soc., Seoul, Korea (2002) 71-77

Fatigue strength/ r , 104 m2/s2

7

6 Fig. 4. Specific fatigue strength

5
of selected cast aluminum alloys
and ductile iron.
4
SC: sand cast, DC: die cast, DI:
3
ductile iron, F: ferritic, FP: ferrit-
2 ic-pearlitic, P: pearlitic, T: tem-
1 pered, AUST: austempered, 355:
0 Al7Si, 356: Al7Si0.4Cu, 357:
DI F Al7Si0.8Cu.

DI T

DI AUST
DI P
356 SC

355 SC

357 SC

356 DC

357 DC

DI FP

16

14

12 Pearlitic DI
UTS/r , 104.m2/s2

10
Fig. 5. Influence of temperature on the
8 specific tensile strength of aluminum
6 Ferritic DI alloys and ductile iron.
4
UTS: ultimate tensile strength, ρ: densi-
Al alloys ty.
2

0
0 200 400 600 800
Temperature, oC

0.4 4
Cost x r /E 1/3
Cost x r /E

Al DI
AUS CG
0.2 Gray 2

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
r /E r /E 1/3

tie, stiffness prescribed panel, stiffness prescribed

Cost x r / s y 1/2

1.5 0.8
2/3
y

1
Cost x r/s

0.4
0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
r /s Y 1/2 r / s y 2/3

panel, strength prescribed beam, strength prescribed

Fig. 6. Comparison between cast iron and aluminum alloys for multi-objective
optimization using mass-cast as performance metrics. The cost is in $/kg, ρ is in
Mg/m3, E is in GPa, and σy is in MPa.
 Proceedings of the 65thWorld Foundry Congress, C. P. Hong et al. eds., The Ko-
rean Foundrymen’s Soc., Seoul, Korea (2002) 71-77

125
machined
115
non-machined

Tensile strength, ksi

105 ASTM

95

85

75

65

55

45
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27

Elongation, %

Fig. 7. Flow and solidification simula- Fig. 8. Mechanical properties of as cast

tion of bottom-fed risered three-plate ferritic thin wall DI.
casting.

References

1) K. HORNUNG, Proc. 61st WORLD FOUNDRY CONGRESS

BEIJING/CHINA 1995, pp.75.
2) ASM HANBOOK Vol. 15 Casting, ASM International, 1992.
3) DUCTILE IRON HANDBOOK, AFS, Des Plaines Illinois, 1992.
4) E. DORAZIL, HIGH STRENGTH AUSTEMPERED DUCTILE CAST IRON,
Ellis Horwood ed., New York, 1991.
5) METALS HANDBOOK Vol. 1, 10th Edition, ASM International, 1990.
6) M.F. ASHBY, ACTA MAT., vol. 48, 2000, pp. 359-369.
7) D.M. STEFANESCU, L.P. DIX, R.E. RUXANDA, C. CORBITT-COBURN,
and T.S. PIWONKA, TRANSACTIONS AFS, 2002, paper 02-178, in print.
8) R. RUXANDA and D.M. STEFANESCU, INT. J. CAST METALS RES., vol.
14, 2002, pp. 207-216.
9) S. CHAROENVILAISIRI, D.M. STEFANESCU, R. RUXANDA, and T.S.
PIWONKA, TRANSACTIONS AFS, 2002, paper 02-176, in print.

View publication stats