IMPLEMENTATION AND VALIDATION OF CASTING SIMULATION METHODOLOGY
FOR DIAGNOSTICS OF LAMELLAR GRAPHITE IRON
Björn Domeij , Ilja Belov , Vasilios Fourlakidis and Attila Dioszegi
Department of Materials and Manufacturing, Jönköping University, Gjuterigatan 5, 551 11 Jönköping, Sweden
Copyright  2022 The Author(s)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40962-022-00892-9
Abstract
This paper describes and validates a methodology for
implementation of full-scale sand-casting simulation in a
general-purpose finite element software, including mold
filling, heat transport, solidification kinetics, chemical
microsegregation and prediction of microstructure and
material properties. The solidification model, customized
for gray cast iron, includes novel methods for handling
interaction between parallel dendritic and eutectic solidi-
fication modes and its impact of their interaction on the
final microstructure. The validation involves a previously
Introduction
Casting simulation is a valuable tool used by product
developers and foundry engineers for product design,
problem solving and optimization of the casting process.
Improvement of simulation capabilities often builds on
published research. Yet, progress is to some degree held
back by the black-box nature of many commercially
available casting simulation software, making it challeng-
ing to identify flaws and remedies and test new ideas. For
this reason, it is essential that methodology is available for
how to test new models in an open casting simulation
setting. COMSOL Multiphysics is a general-purpose finite
element (FE) simulation software with fully coupled mul-
tiphysics modeling capabilities and possibility for users to
extend the standard models with custom differential
equations.1 In this paper, we develop and implement a
COMSOL-based methodology to simulate key aspects of
an iron casting process, such as mold filling, heat con-
duction, solidification kinetics in relation to a ternary
equilibrium phase diagram, microstructure and material
properties.
Received: 01 July 2022 / Accepted: 19 September 2022
International Journal of Metalcasting
published gray iron casting experiment and involves
comparison of simulated and experimental cooling curves,
microstructure parameters and tensile strength. We believe
that this is valuable to researchers and engineers seeking
to improve the state of the art of casting simulation tools.
Keywords: simulation, casting, solidification, gray cast
iron, level-set method
A previously published model for tensile strength in
pearlitic gray iron2 was complemented by a new model for
solidification kinetics, aiming to eliminate reliance on
experimental cooling curve data. The formulated model is
a micro/macromodel suitable for gray cast irons, including
novel features such as restriction of eutectic to the inside of
dendrite envelopes and a method for predicting the den-
dritic structure observed in the as-cast material based on its
evolution in contact with the liquid and gradual engulfment
by the eutectic. The solidification model was first imple-
mented using the numeric computing environment
MATLAB in one dimension (1-D).3 Once all the features
had been implemented and proven stable, it was imple-
mented in COMSOL Multiphysics for simulation in three
dimensions (3-D). Agreement between the 1-D and 3-D
implementations was verified by comparing temperature
curves on a simple spherical geometry. The 3-D imple-
mentation was then applied to previously published gray
iron casting experiment data2 to validate its applicability to
a complex casting scenario, involving mold filling. Com-
parison between simulation and experiment involved
cooling curves, microstructure parameters and tensile
strength
We believe this work is valuable for researchers and
engineers interested in advancing the capabilities of casting
simulation tools, both with respect to the outlined
methodology for casting simulation in a general finite
element software and with respect to the novel features of
the formulated solidification and microstructure model for
gray iron.
Simulation Methodology for Casting Diagnostics
The proposed simulation methodology is designed for
gravity casting of lamellar graphite iron, to enable pre-
diction of both the evolving features of the solidification
structure as well as the final microstructure features found
in the cast material. The evolving features of the solidifi-
cation structure are important for ease of material transport
during solidification, while the final microstructure features
are important for prediction of local material properties.
This work focuses on prediction of tensile strength using a
published model utilizing a microstructure parameter
called the hydraulic diameter of interdendritic phases.2,4
However, extension with additional microstructure
parameters and material properties should be easy follow-
ing the same methodology.
The fully user-controlled workflow is overviewed in Fig-
ure 1. It begins with importing the computer-aided design
(CAD) geometry of the casting and the mold, and simu-
lation of the mold filling, where solidification effects are
assumed negligible due to relatively high pouring temper-
ature. The temperature field in casting and mold at the end
of the mold filling are then transferred onto the initial
temperature field (Tinit) for the simulation of solidification,
microstructure and property formation. It is also possible to
import the initial temperature field from other mold filling
simulation tools; however, an additional importing inter-
face would be required between the software tools. The
initial temperature field is best validated using experi-
mental cooling curves or verified using more advanced
Finite Volume Method (FVM) CFD software. The solidi-
fication model described in the following section is a key
component of the simulation methodology.
Solidification Model
A brief overview of the solidification model customized for
gray cast iron is presented here. The numerical scheme is a
micro/macromethod which can be characterized as a fixed-
domain source-term method.5 In essence, a mathematical
model of growing microscopic solidification units defines
the rate of phase transformations which latent heat release
is placed in the source term of the heat transfer equation.
The heat transfer equation is solved numerically over the
macroscopic mesh. Besides defining the source term, the
micro-model involves modeling of chemical microsegre-
gation, phase composition and representations of the
solidification microstructure which provides important
information about the cast material. While much of the
micro-model is adopted from predecessors, the two more
novel features are the gradual capture of evolving dendritic
structure into the eutectic and the restriction of eutectic to
the inside of dendrite envelopes.
As the melt undercools below the liquidus temperature, the
solidification model is activated. Phase transformations are
driven by undercooling in relation to a description of the
Fe–C–Si equilibrium phase diagram, obtained by regres-
sion to phase equilibria calculated using Thermo-Calc
2019a with the TCFE7 database.6
Growth of Primary and Eutectic Envelopes
Phases considered in the solidification model are liquid (L),
austenite (c) and graphite (G). During the primary stage of
solidification, randomly distributed spherical envelopes
grow and impinge in accordance with the Kolmogorov–
Johnson–Mehl–Avrami (KJMA) model,7 assuming a con-
stant number density of nucleation sites N D . The volume
fraction of primary envelopes is given by Eqn. (1).
 
4p 3
gD ¼ 1  exp  r D N D Eqn: 1
3
While the argument of the natural exponential function
(exp) is the so-called extended volume fraction including
overlap of the randomly distributed spheres, gD is the
corrected volume fraction without the overlap. Once the
temperature falls below the eutectic temperature, a new set
of spherical envelopes is introduced by Eqn. (2), growing
and impinging in the same manner as the primary
envelopes.
 
4p
gE ¼ 1  exp  r 3E N E Eqn: 2
3
The rate of radial growth of both envelopes described by
Eqns. (3) and (4) is according to the Oldfield model,8
though with separate coefficients K D and K E and exponents
nD and nE for primary and eutectic envelopes, respectively.
or D
¼ K D DT nDD Eqn: 3
ot
or E
¼ K E DT nEE Eqn: 4
ot
The eutectic envelopes are superposed on the primary
envelopes. The portion of primary envelopes not
intersecting with eutectic (D\E) contains a phase mixture
of austenite and liquid (c ? L), while the intersection
between the two (D \ E) contains the eutectic mixture of
austenite and graphite (c ? G). In other words, free
dendrites remain only in the portion of the primary
envelopes not yet overgrown by eutectic. Likewise,
International Journal of Metalcasting
eutectic exists only in eutectic envelopes which are inside
primary envelopes. The interaction between the growing
primary and eutectic domains is illustrated schematically in
Figure 2. The restriction of eutectic to the inside of primary
envelopes is motivated by observations that the austenite in
eutectic cells tends to have the same crystallographic
orientation as the surrounding dendrite grains, indicating
that eutectic austenites are merely extensions of the earlier
dendrites.9,10
Phase Composition and Microsegregation
The total volume fraction of austenite is thus described as
Eqn. (5).
gA ¼ giA gD ð1  gE Þ þ ð1  giG ÞgD gE Eqn: 5
The factor gD ð1  gE Þ restricts the internal austenite giA to
the portion of the primary envelopes which are not
occupied by eutectic envelopes. Likewise, the factor
gD gE restricts eutectic austenite to the eutectic envelopes
inside primary envelopes. The total volume fraction of
graphite is described in the same manner as Eqn. (6).
gG ¼ giG gE gD Eqn: 6
The volume occupied neither by austenite nor graphite
remains liquid. Both envelopes adopt the average chemical
composition (w0C and w0Si ) from the parent liquid; however,
solute partitions between the phases. The partition
coefficient kSi is updated in accordance with the phase
diagram description based on the chemical composition of
the interdendritic liquid (wLA iL
C , wSi ). Microsegregation of Si
is modeled by Eqn. (7) according to the differential form of
the Gulliver–Scheil equation.11,12
owiL og ð1  kSi ÞwiL
Si
¼ LD Si
Eqn: 7
ot ot gLD
Here, gLD refers to the volume fraction of liquid in primary
envelopes, corresponding to the volume fraction of the
envelope occupied by neither primary austenite nor
eutectic, expressed as Eqn. (8).
gLD ¼ ð1  giA Þð1  gE Þ Eqn: 8
Microsegregation of other substitutional alloying elements
can be modeled in the same manner, assuming that
partition coefficients and initial concentrations are
known. It follows from microsegregation that eutectic
austenite may have a different average concentration of Si
than primary austenite. A method for calculating the
average in the eutectic is treated in section Capture of
parameters in the eutectic.
The volume fraction of austenite in the primary envelope is
calculated using a mass balance of carbon, where
International Journal of Metalcasting
concentrations of liquid and austenite are taken from the
phase diagram description for the local temperature and
concentration of Si in the liquid. Accounting for unequal
densities of the two phases, the mass balance leads to
expression Eqn. (9)
1
giA ¼   Eqn: 9
ðkC 1ÞwLA qA
1þ C
1
w0C wLA
C
qL
The equation applies also below the eutectic temperature by
extrapolation of wLAC and kC to lower temperatures. This
implies that the interdendritic liquid remains in equilibrium
with austenite below the eutectic temperature. This
assumption has proven useful for modeling of ductile iron,
where liquid is rarely in direct contact with graphite.13,14
However, it seems to be a reasonable approximation also for
hypoeutectic gray iron, considering that the liquid is also
here predominantly in contact with austenite. Primary
precipitation of graphite is outside the scope of the present
paper. The mass fraction of graphite in the eutectic envelope
can be calculated in a similar manner as Eqn. (10).
1
giG ¼   Eqn: 10
1wAE qA
1þ C
w0C wAE
1 qL
C
However, graphite is here assumed to be pure carbon and
the concentration of C in austenite, wAE
C , is driven toward
equilibrium with graphite by diffusion of carbon toward the
graphite in accordance with the differential Eqn. (11).
 AE 
owAE wC  wAGC
C
¼ DA Eqn: 11
C 2
ot M
For simplicity, diffusion is assumed to occur in one
direction and the diffusion length is assumed to be the
mean dendrite modulus captured in the eutectic M (more
details in sections Dendrite morphology during
solidification and Capture of parameters in eutectic).
Modeling of the desaturation of austenite is a prerequisite
for extensions of the simulation to include the solid-state
transformations of austenite and associated microstructure
features.
Dendrite Morphology During Solidification
Austenite in the primary envelope grows with dendritic
morphology, which is known to coarsen while in contact
with liquid. The scale of dendrite structure is here char-
acterized by its modulus (M), defined as the ratio of its
volume over its surface area.15 Interpretation of M is
facilitated by the fact that it approaches half the radius of a
long cylinder, a geometry comparable to dendrite arms. But
the modulus has the advantage of being defined for any
shape. The modulus of dendrites in gray iron has been
shown to evolve in proportion to the cubic root of
 Tinit Tinit COMSOL
COMSOL mould
Verificaon solidificaon
filling simulaon
simulaon

Tinit, exp
FVM mould filling
CAD T, , ,
simulaon
geometry UTS
or experiment

Figure 1. Simulation methodology.

Figure 2. A 2-D representation of the growing primary (D) and eutectic (E) domains. The domain outside D and E is
fully liquid.

solidification time.15 Details about the new coarsening
model for the modulus, represented here by Eqn. (12), will
be published elsewhere.
oM
¼ f ðt; M; giA ; gD Þ Eqn: 12
ot
As indicated by arguments giA and gD of the function, the
model draws benefit from the present solidification model
formulation.
Capture of Parameters in the Eutectic
The dendrite modulus M continues to evolve until the
dendrite is captured in the eutectic envelope. Consequently,
the gradual capture of dendrites by growing eutectic causes
spatial variation of M at the scale of eutectic envelopes. For
many purposes, the mean modulus M captured in the
eutectic is a more practical parameter, because it represents
better what would be measured on a cross section of the
material. The parameter M can be calculated using Eqn.
(13) which is solved along with the other differential
equations.
oMðtÞ ogE MðtÞ  M ðtÞ
¼ Eqn: 13
ot ot gE
Equation (13) can be interpreted as dilution of the mean
modulus M, as M of free dendrites is captured at the
boundary of the growing eutectic gE . The captured mean of
other parameters, like giA and wAE Si , is calculated in the
same manner by substitution of corresponding parameters
for M and M in Eqn. (13). The mean of parameters which
have no interaction with the solver is best calculated in post
processing.
Model for Tensile Strength
This work employs an empirical Eqn. (14), which relates
the tensile strength of pearlitic gray cast iron with the
morphology of the dendritic structure.4
kt
rUTS ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Eqn: 14
IP
Dhyd
IP
Note that the units of rUTS , Dhyd and kt are here different
from,4 meaning that scaling of kt is necessary.
The dendrite morphology is here represented by the
hydraulic diameter of interdendritic phases, which is a
shape-independent measure of the scale of the interden-
dritic space, calculated as the ratio of its volume to its
surface area. In essence, it is almost identical to M, the only

International Journal of Metalcasting

difference being that it characterizes the space between
dendrite arms rather than the arms themselves. While the
correlation of the parameter with tensile strength is an
empirical finding, it may play a mechanistic role as a
measure of the space in which crack-initiating graphite
flakes may exist. As this parameter is measured over an
area of a cross section of the solid material, it corresponds
IP
to the mean of the parameter captured in the eutectic, Dhyd .
This parameter is easily calculated from giA and M using
Eqn. (15) due to its direct geometric relation with the two.
 
IP 1
Dhyd ¼  1 M:
giA
Implementation of a 1-D Solidification Model
The solidification model was first implemented into a 1-D
heat conduction simulation in MATLAB using implicit
control volume-based finite difference method (implicit
CV-FDM) with spherical symmetry. The numerical treat-
ment of the heat conduction calculation has been described
in detail elsewhere.16
the regulation of austenite in the primary envelope giA was
excluded from the source and instead accounted for in an
apparent heat capacity C p 16
ogiA
C p ¼ C p þ g ð1  gE ÞDH A Eqn: 17
oT D
The derivative ogiA =oT was obtained from Eqn. (9) using
the slope of the liquidus surface in the phase diagram. The
term including ogiA =ot must consequently be excluded
from ogA =ot in Eqn. (16).
Eqn: 15 This would make the numerical scheme used for the 1-D
implementation a hybrid of the source-term method and the
apparent heat capacity method (also known as effective
specific heat method). Note that this was not used in the
latter 3-D implementation of the solidification model into
the FE software.
Implementation of a Full-Scale Iron Casting
Process Simulation

The rate of release of latent heat of fusion was calculated
by means of Eqn. (16) as the sum of contributions from the
two solid phases.
oQ ogA og
¼ DH A qA þ G DH G qG
ot ot ot
The derivatives ogA =ot and ogG =ot were obtained by
differentiation of Eqns. (9) and (10). The resulting
expressions are extensive and are for this reason not
shown here.
Including all released latent heat of fusion in the source
term made the simulation prone to numerical instability. To
counter this issue, the portion of the latent heat related to
The model for the mold filling simulation overviewed in
Figure 3 was realized in COMSOL using its CFD and heat
transfer modules. Heat transfer equations were solved both
for the mold material and for the liquid iron. The coupling
between the two was obtained via the interfacial heat flux
Eqn: 16 determined by iron-to-mold heat transfer coefficients. The
molten iron flow was assumed laminar creeping flow, and it
was modeled as a two-phase flow with the moving
boundary between the liquid iron and the air evaluated by
level set method, with Navier slip condition set at the
casting walls. While these simplifications are sufficient to
provide a reasonable initial temperature field Tinit, which is
the scope in this context, more advanced modeling is
required to predict flow induced casting defects such as gas
entrapment.

Mould filling
Nonisothermal Weed
flow Wall

Tmelt Tmelt
u u
Tb = Tmelt

Heat Transfer in Solids Heat Transfer in Fluids Creeping Flow Level

(mould) (molten iron) (molten iron) Set

Tmould Tmelt
Tmelt U, P u u U, P
1 2
Two-Phase Flow,
Level Set

Figure 3. Mold filling model structure (orange circles indicate connections to other blocks).

International Journal of Metalcasting

 Solidification

Tinit Heat Transfer in Solids (metal domain) T

2 3

4
Growth rate of primary envelope Dendrite coarsening
Release of latent heat (Source)
3

3 Calculate
Desaturaon of carbon in eutecc
phase
austenite Primary phase captured in eutecc
fracons

Scheil segregaon Growth rate of eutecc envelope Modulus of dendrites captured in

eutecc

Average Si in eutecc austenite

Figure 4. Overview of differential equations related to solidification solved by COMSOL. The block
‘‘Calculate phase fractions’’ includes complementary equations necessary to transform some of the
information passed between the differential equations. Orange circles indicate connections to other
blocks.

The velocity field u was frozen after the mold filling, such
that the solidification model did not include any fluid
Contact resistance, K.m2/W dynamics. The temperature distribution (Tinit) at the end of
mold filling was transferred to the heat transfer equations
Req both for the mold and metal domains. While simulation of
convection in parallel with solidification was beyond the
scope of this work, such an expansion of the simulation
would improve the accuracy of the temperature field and
account for the effect of macroscopic chemical
Tsand Tmetal segregation.

domain 1 domain 2 The model for heat transfer during solidification in the
metal domain is overviewed in Figure 4, where the heat
transfer (conduction) equation is found in the top. The
right-hand side of the equation includes the source term
q which is supplied by the solidification model defined by the
equations found beneath in the figure. All differential
equations shown in the figure are numerically solved
x together. Complementary equations for calculation of
phase fractions (Eqns. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–10, 14, 15) based on
Figure 5. Schematic of a boundary between sand and
mass balances, geometry and a phase diagram description
metal domains.
are represented by the block ‘‘Calculate phase fractions.’’

International Journal of Metalcasting


Figure 6. Spherical cast geometry for model verification.
The solid circular and square dots indicate the locations
for comparison of cooling curves.
Figure 7. Comparison of cooling curves for locations
indicated in Figure 6 between 3-D (solid curves) and 1-D
(dashed curves) simulation results, verifying close
agreement.
Implementation of the 3-D solidification model is rather
straight forward, as the numerical treatment is to a high
degree handled by the software. The solidification model
was implemented using the Heat Transfer in Solids inter-
face (COMSOL Heat Transfer module). Note that, contrary
to the 1-D implementation, all latent heat of fusion was
here introduced into the heat conduction equation as
source.
International Journal of Metalcasting
Figure 8. Simulated experimental layout: (1) Thermo-
couples, (2) sand mold and (3) insulation plates, adapted
from 2 by correction of pointers.
Figure 9. Meshed FE geometry.
Heat Flux on the Metal–Mold Interface
Since the solidification model includes only the solid
domains (mold and metal), the heat flux at the metal–mold
interfaces is set up differently than in the case of convec-
tive fluid–solid heat transfer. In case of metal casting, the
temperature difference controls the heat flux at the shared
boundary between the sand and the metal. In casting sim-
ulation software, the heat transfer coefficient between the
metal and sand domains is specified as the function of
metal temperature. This is achieved using the Thermal
Contact feature. Assuming for simplicity one-dimensional
heat flux, the Thermal Contact feature expresses heat fluxes
qd and qu at the boundary, as Eqns. (18) and (19).
qd ¼ hðT metal ÞðT u  T d Þ; Eqn: 18
qu ¼ hðT metal ÞðT d  T u Þ; Eqn: 19
where h (W m-2 K-1) is the reciprocal of the contact
resistance Req (Km2 W-1).
 Table 1. Simulated microstructural parameters and UTS, including % errors compared to the measured values2
IP IP
giA M (lm) Dhyd (lm) UTS (MPa) % Error, M % Error, Dhyd % Error, UTS

Sand 0.59 15.3 10.6 362 9.3 9.3 7.4

Insulation 0.59 22.4 15.3 308 8.6 8.9 6.6

Figure 10. Simulated temperature (°C) distribution in the casting and the mold materials after the filling stage.

Figure 11. The comparison between simulated and experimental cooling curves at
the probe locations within insulated and sand-encapsulated cast cylinders.

International Journal of Metalcasting

Subscripts d and u refer to the down- and upsides of the
boundary. Which is the upside of the boundary is deter-
mined internally by the software when the geometry is set
up, meaning the metal may end up on either side. To ensure
that Tmetal points to the temperature on the metal side of
boundaries, domain indices can be determined graphically
using operators up(dom) and down(dom), where ‘‘dom’’ is
the domain index. For example, application of operator
up(dom) to the boundary in Figure 5 returns domain index
2, which in this example corresponds to the metal domain,
meaning Tmetal = up(T) in Eqns. (18) and (19) on this
boundary.
Results
One-Dimensional Model Verification: Spherical
Casting
Agreement between the 3-D and 1-D solidification model
implementations was verified by comparison with cooling
curves taken from two locations of a spherical geometry, as
shown in Figure 6. Molten gray iron was solidified inside a
thin-walled spherical shell, having the inner radius 22 mm.
Utilizing symmetries of the sphere, the geometry was
simplified to a thin slice to speed up the FE simulation.
Temperature curves from the center and the inner surface
of the sphere were compared, as shown in Figure 7. The
curves are almost perfectly overlapping. The residual small
difference is likely a consequence of the different numer-
ical treatments in the MATLAB and COMSOL
implementations.
Three-Dimensional Model Validation:
Cylindrical Castings
To validate the simulation methodology for a more com-
plex casting geometry, as well as to demonstrate how it
may combine with a mold filling simulation, the imple-
mented 3-D model was applied to a casting experiment.2,4
The geometry (Figure 8), process parameters, probe loca-
tions and the experimental cooling curves were adopted
from.2 The meshed finite element geometry is shown in
Figure 9, where a finer mesh is applied on the casting and
insulation and chill cylinders. The temperature distribution
on a cross section after the mold filling is shown in
Figure 10.
Figure 11 shows a comparison between the simulated and
experimental cooling curves at the probe locations within
insulated and sand-encapsulated cast cylinders, which both
show good agreement. The chilled cylinder is excluded
from the comparison based on its carbide content, given
that the solidification model does not account for growth of
the metastable carbide–austenite eutectic.
International Journal of Metalcasting
Table 1 shows agreement between simulation and experi-
ment with regard to microstructural parameters and the
UTS for the two cooling rates. All the % errors fall within
10% of the corresponding measured quantity, which can be
regarded good agreement given the complexity and multi-
physical nature of the solved problem.
The agreement between simulation and experiment in
Figure 11 and Table 1 must be interpreted in light of the
adjustments of heat transfer coefficients and parameters of
the solidification model.
Heat transfer coefficients between the metal and the other
domains (insulation, sand, chill) were adjusted with a focus
on agreement of cooling curves for temperatures outside
the solidification range. Heat transfer coefficients constitute
a major uncertainty in casting simulations, varying signif-
icantly in their implementation between different com-
mercial simulation tools.
Parameters related to solidification kinetics were subse-
quently adjusted within reasonable limits such as to
reproduce the observed recalescence with good agreement.
While growth law parameters were global, the number of
nucleation sites was fitted separately for each cylinder. The
individual fit of the number of nucleation sites is motivated
given that it is known to vary considerably depending on
cooling conditions. Obviously, in order to make the pre-
sented simulation approach useful, it must be comple-
mented with a nucleation law which predicts the number of
nucleation sites based on the local cooling conditions and
the metallurgy of the metal.
With the uncertainties coming with these adjustments in
mind, the agreement between simulated and experimental
cooling curves in Figure 11 and the parallel agreement of
microstructure parameters in Table 1 demonstrates (a) that
the presented simulation approach is feasible for testing of
new models for prediction of solidification kinetics,
microstructure and material properties and (b) that the
introduced solidification model is capable of predicting
realistic microstructure parameters and tensile strength
given realistic temperature evolution and (c) that the
solidification model is capable of generating realistic
cooling curves.
However, more work is needed to determine appropriate
solidification model parameters more rigorously and to
introduce a responsive nucleation law.
The introduced model for solidification kinetics and pre-
diction of microstructure parameters complements the
previously validated tensile strength model in that it relies
on input about chemical composition and parameters
related to growth kinetics, rather than experimentally
determined apparent specific heat capacity (Cp*) used in its
previous implementation in Flow-3D.2
Conclusions giA Internal volume fraction of austenite in the portion
of primary envelopes not occupied by eutectic
A methodology was presented and validated for simulation envelopes
of key aspects of gravity casting process in a general FEA giG Internal volume fraction of graphite in the
software, including mold filling, heat transfer in mold and intersection of eutectic and primary envelopes
metal, solidification and prediction of local microstructure gLD Volume fraction of liquid in primary envelopes
and material properties. The methodology is valuable for giA Mean internal volume fraction of austenite captured
researchers who seek to advance the capabilities of casting in eutectic
simulation and opens an alternative route for empowering rD (m)
users of casting simulation tools with the latest models. rE (m)
The implemented solidification model for gray cast iron
includes unique features which are valuable for improved Partition Coefficients and Concentrations
accuracy of solidification kinetics and prediction of
microstructure and properties. The main contributions are kC Partition coefficient for carbon
highlighted below: kSi Partition coefficient for silicon
w0C Initial average weight fraction of carbon in alloy
• Casting process simulation model equations, w0Si Initial average weight fraction of silicon in alloy
structure and data flow were presented to enable wLA
C Weight fraction of carbon in liquid at equilibrium
an open iron casting simulation setting. with austenite
• Practical guidelines were provided on how to wAL
C Weight fraction of carbon in austenite at
implement heat transfer coefficients at boundaries equilibrium with liquid
between mold and metal in the FEA software. wAG
C Weight fraction of carbon in austenite at
• The casting process simulation methodology was equilibrium with graphite
validated by application to a complex casting wAE
C Weight fraction of carbon in eutectic austenite
experiment from a previous publication, demon- wAE
Si Mean weight fraction of Si in eutectic austenite
strating that it is feasible for testing of new models wAL
Si Weight fraction of silicon in austenite at
for solidification, microstructure and properties. equilibrium with interdendritic liquid
• The solidification model handles interaction wiL
Si Weight fraction of silicon in interdendritic liquid
between primary and eutectic solidification units M Modulus of dendrites (m)
in two novel ways: (1) eutectic only grows inside M Mean modulus of dendrites captured in eutectic (m)
IP
dendrite envelopes and (2) the as-cast dendritic Dhyd Mean hydraulic diameter of interdendritic phases
structure is calculated by gradual capture of the captured in eutectic (m)
evolving free dendrites into the growing eutectic. Thermophysical Properties and Metallurgical
• Agreement between simulation and experiment Parameters
demonstrated that the solidification model pro-
vides reasonable microstructure parameters and DH A Latent heat of fusion for austenite (J kg-1)
tensile strength given that cooling curves are DH G Latent heat of dissolution for graphite (J kg-1)
reproduced with decent accuracy. Moreover, it qA Specific mass of austenite (kg m-1)
demonstrated that the solidification model is qG Specific mass of graphite (kg m-1)
capable of generating realistic recalescence. kt Empirical coefficient for tensile strength model
• Connection of the solidification model to a multi- (m1/2 Pa)
component (in this case ternary) phase diagram KD Oldfield coefficient for growth of primary envelope
was found useful for estimation of the impact of KE Oldfield coefficient for growth of eutectic envelope
changes in chemical composition of the alloy on nD Oldfield exponent for growth of primary envelope
cooling curves, microstructure and properties. nE Oldfield exponent for growth of eutectic envelope
• While the solidification model was designed for ND Number of primary envelopes per unit volume
hypoeutectic gray irons, the phase diagram and (m-1)
growth laws are easily adapted to other hypoeu- NE Number of eutectic envelopes per unit volume
tectic cast irons or other alloys. (m-1)
M0 Initial modulus of dendrites (m)
DAC Diffusivity of carbon in austenite (m2 t-1)
List of Symbols Phases and Envelopes
u Flow velocity of the molten metal in the mold
(m s-1)
gD Volume fraction of primary envelopes
q Density of molten iron during mold filling (kg m-3)
gE Volume fraction of eutectic envelopes
l Dynamic viscosity of molten iron during mold
gA Total volume fraction of austenite
filling (Pa s)
gG Total volume fraction of graphite

International Journal of Metalcasting

Cp Specific heat capacity of molten iron during mold
filling (J kg-1 K-1)
Cp* Apparent specific heat capacity of iron during
solidification (J kg-1 K-1)
Acknowledgements
This work was made possible through the LeanCast
project (Grant number 20180033), co-financed by the
Swedish Knowledge Foundation, Jönköping University,
Scania CV AB, Volvo Group Trucks Technology AB
and SKF Mekan AB. We do not believe that these
funding sources had any influence on this paper besides
assuring that the topic of study is relevant to society.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Jönköping University.
The funding was provided by Stiftelsen för Kunskaps-
och Kompetensutveckling (Grand No. 20180033).
Open Access
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use,
sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to
the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were
made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative
Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted
by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you
will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
REFERENCES
1. COMSOL Multiphysics 5.6 Reference Manual, COM-
SOL (2020)
2. V. Fourlakidis, I. Belov, A. Diószegi, Strength
prediction for pearlitic lamellar graphite iron: model
validation. Metals 8, 684 (2018). https://doi.org/10.
3390/met8090684
3. MATLAB User’s Guide (R2019b) Mathworks (2019)
4. V. Fourlakidis, A. Diószegi, A generic model to
predict the ultimate tensile strength in pearlitic
International Journal of Metalcasting
lamellar graphite iron. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 618,
161–167 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2014.
08.061
5. D.M. Stefanescu, Methodologies for modeling of
solidification microstructure and their capabilities.
ISIJ Int. 35, 637–650 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2355/
isijinternational.35.637
6. Thermo-Calc Documentation Set, Thermo-Calc Soft-
ware AB 2019 (Solna Sweden, 2019)
7. M. Avrami, Kinetics of phase change: II. Transfor-
mation-time relations for random distribution of
nuclei. J. Chem. Phys. 8, 212–224 (1940). https://doi.
org/10.1063/1.1750631
8. W. Oldfield, A quantitative approach to casting
solidification: freezing of cast iron. Trans. Am. Soc.
Met. 59, 946–961 (1966)
9. J.A. Sikora, R.E. Boeri, G.L. Rivera, Solidification of
gray cast iron. Scr. Mater. 50, 331–335 (2004). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2003.10.019
10. G.L. Rivera, P.R. Calvillo, R.E. Boeri, Y. Houbaert,
J.A. Sikora, Examination of the solidification
macrostructure of spheroidal and flake graphite cast
irons using DAAS and ESBD. Mater. Charact. 59,
1342–1348 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.
2007.11.009
11. G. Gulliver, The quantitative effect of rapid cooling
upon the constitution of binary alloys. J. Inst. Met. 9,
120–157 (1913)
12. E. Scheil, Bemerkungen zur schichtkristallbildung.
Int. J. Mater. Res. 34, 70–72 (1942)
13. J. Lacaze, H. Fredriksson, G. Lesoult, Eutectic
solidification of S. G. Fe-C-Si alloys, in Solidification
Processing (Sheffield, 1987), pp. 117–120
14. G. Lesoult, M. Castro, J. Lacaze, Solidification of
spheroidal graphite cast irons-I. Physical modelling.
Acta Mater. 46, 997–1010 (1998). https://doi.org/10.
1016/S1359-6454(97)00281-4
15. R. Lora, A. Diószegi, Dynamic coarsening of 3.3C-
1.9Si gray cast iron. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 43,
5165–5172 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-
012-1244-z
16. J. Hattel, Fundamentals of Numerical Modelling of
Casting Processes, ed. by J. Hattel (Polyteknisk
Forlag, 2005)
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.