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

net/publication/257912227

Determining the carbon equivalent of cast iron by the thermo-calc program

Article  in  Steel in Translation · November 2011

DOI: 10.3103/S0967091211110027

CITATIONS READS
6 6,865

2 authors:

V. E. Bazhenov Viktor Pikunov

National University of Science and Technology MISIS Russian Academy of Sciences
131 PUBLICATIONS   469 CITATIONS    61 PUBLICATIONS   92 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

FEM simulation of complex loading at screw rolling View project

Additive manufacturing of metallic materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by V. E. Bazhenov on 04 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 09670912, Steel in Translation, 2011, Vol. 41, No. 11, pp. 896–899. © Allerton Press, Inc., 2011.
Original Russian Text © V.E. Bazhenov, M.V. Pikunov, 2011, published in “Izvestiya VUZ. Chernaya Metallurgiya,” 2011, No. 11, pp. 20–23.

Determining the Carbon Equivalent of Cast Iron

by the ThermoCalc Program
V. E. Bazhenov and M. V. Pikunov
Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys
Received September 19, 2011

DOI: 10.3103/S0967091211110027

The carbon equivalent expresses the apparent car
bon content in cast iron with complex composition.
The carbon content found by this means is used to
assess the structure of complex cast irons by means of
the binary Fe–C diagram. The carbon equivalent is
invaluable in technological analysis. It is used in
empirical formulas for the thermal conductivity [1],
shrinkage, specific heat, latent heat of fusion, linear
expansion coefficient [2], and other properties.
Usually, the carbon equivalent CEq is expressed by
the formula
n
∑G
i
C Eq = C C + C Ci .
1 tions (34 = 81), for each of which the eutectic point is
Here CC, Ci are the concentrations (wt %) of car
bon and other alloying elements, respectively, in the
i
cast iron; G C is the carbon equivalent of element i.
Thus, the total carbon equivalent of the cast iron con
sists of the carbon content and the carbon equivalents
for each additional element. The carbon equivalents are
usually determined experimentally [3–5]; sometimes,
thermodynamic calculations are employed [4–7]. The
total thermodynamic calculation of the carbon equiv
alents for silicon and phosphorus may be found in [6].
The carbon equivalents of silicon and phosphorus are
Si P
G C = 0.3 and G C = 0.3, according to [6]. The calcu
lation is based on the reaction parameters of silicon
and phosphorus in liquid iron at 1600°C.
In the present work, we determine the carbon
Si P Mn S
equivalents G C , G C , G C , and G C by means of poly
thermal cross sections of the Fe–C–Si–P–Mn–S
system plotted using the ThermoCalc program. To
determine these carbon equivalents, we plot the poly
thermal cross sections of the Fe–C–Si–P–Mn–S
system for carbon, with the following content of the
other elements (%): Si = (1; 2; 4); P = (0.2; 0.5; 0.7);
Mn = 0.5; 1; 1.5); and S = (0.05; 0.1; 0.2). All combi
nations of these elementary concentrations are con
(1) sidered. In all, we analyze 81 polythermal cross sec
determined. By regression analysis, we obtain the fol
lowing formula for the carbon equivalent
C Eq = C C + 0.3C Si + 0.33C P – 0.015C Mn + 0.26C S . (2)
This is valid for the following concentration ranges:
0–4.0% Si; 0–0.7% P; 0–1.5% Mn; and 0–0.2% S.
Si P Mn
Table 1 presents the carbon equivalents G C , G C , G C ,
S
and G C from various sources. We see that the carbon
equivalents obtained in the present work resemble
those from [3, 4, 6]; by contrast, the agreement is not
good with the values for P, Mn, and S in [5].

Table 1. Carbon equivalents of silicon, phosphorus, manganese, and sulfur from various sources
Carbon equivalent
Method of deter
Source
mination GC
Si
GC
P
GC
Mn S
GC

Present work Calculation 0.300 0.330 –0.015 0.260

[3] Experiment 0.300 0.300 – –
[4] Experiment 0.310 0.330 –0.027 0.400
[4] Calculation 0.290 0.350 –0.029 0.410
[5] Experiment 0.300 0.250 –0.070 0.140
[6] Calculation 0.300 0.310 – –

896
 DETERMINING THE CARBON EQUIVALENT OF CAST IRON 897

(a) (b) (c)

1350
L+γ L+γ
1300 L+γ L L+Γ L
L L+Γ L+Γ
Temperature, °C

1250 L + MnS L + MnS

L + MnS
1200
L + γ + MnS L + γ + MnS L + γ + MnS
L + Γ + MnS L + Γ + MnS L + Γ + MnS
1150 3.63
3.49 3.76
L + γ + Γ+ MnS L + γ + Γ+ MnS
1100
γ + MnS L + γ + Γ+ MnS γ + MnS γ + MnS
1050
γ + Γ + MnS γ + Γ + MnS γ + Γ + MnS
1000
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
C content, wt % C content, wt % C content, wt %

Fig. 1. Polythermal cross sections of the Fe–C–Si–P–Mn–S system for carbon, with constant Si, P, Mn, and S content corre
sponding to SCh10 (a), SCh20 (b), and SCh30 (c) cast iron.

The results indicate that ThermoCalc software is
suitable for determining the carbon equivalent in cast
iron containing any alloying elements.
We may calculate the carbon equivalent from the
phase diagram without using the carbon equivalents
i tem; CC is the carbon content in the cast iron (Table 2);
G C . This entails plotting the polythermal cross section
of the Fe–C–Si–P–Mn–S system (or a more com
plex system, if necessary) for carbon. In Fig. 1, we
show the polythermal cross sections for SCh10,
SCh20, and SCh30 cast iron). Table 2 presents the
theoretical hotmetal composition according to State
Standard GOST 1412–85. Note that the carbon
equivalent permits analysis of a multicomponent alloy
as if it were a binary alloy. Note, however, that the
eutectic transformation L → γ + Γ is monovariant and
therefore covers a temperature range. It is evident from
Fig. 1 that the eutecticsolidification interval is 1150 –
1050 = 100°C for SCh10 cast iron and 1150 – 1100 =
50°C for SCh20 and SCh30 cast iron.
On the polythermal cross sections, the eutectic
point Ceut is 3.49, 3.63, and 3.76 (Fig. 1) for SCh10,
SCh20, and SCh30 cast iron, respectively. The carbon
equivalent may be calculated from the formula
CEq = 4.34 + CC – Ceut, (3)
where 4.34 is the eutectic point in the binary Fe–C sys
Ceut is the eutectic point on the polythermal cross sec
tion of the Fe–C–Si–P–Mn–S system for carbon,
with the constant Si, P, Mn, and S concentrations
given in Table 2.
According to Eq. (2), the carbon equivalent for
SCh10, SCh20, and SCh30 cast iron is 4.45, 4.09, and
3.67% C, respectively. According to Eq. (3), the corre
sponding values are 4.45, 4.11, and 3.68%. As we see,
the agreement is very good. Analysis of Eq. (3) shows
that, with no alloying elements, Ceut = 4.34, and we
obtain the simple result CEq = CC.
It is expedient to determine the overall carbon
equivalent on the basis of the phase diagrams of multi
i
component systems because the carbon equivalent G C
of element i depends on the carbon content. In Fig. 2,

Table 2. Composition of SCh10, SCh20, and SCh30 cast iron used for the calculation of the polythermal cross sections,
eutectic points, and carbon equivalents

Content, wt %
CEq CEq
Cast iron P S Ceut
from Eq. 2 from Eq. 3
C Si Mn
no more than

SCh10 3.6 2.4 0.6 0.3 0.15 3.49 4.45 4.45

SCh20 3.4 2.0 0.8 0.2 0.15 3.63 4.09 4.11

SCh30 3.1 1.6 0.8 0.2 0.12 3.76 3.67 3.68

STEEL IN TRANSLATION Vol. 41 No. 11 2011

898 BAZHENOV, PIKUNOV

GC
j Is it necessary to take account of elements such as
Si
Al, Cr, and V in calculating the total carbon equiva
0.3 lent? If they are disregarded, Eq. (1) remains in force,
0.2 Cu
Al and there is no need for analysis of the phase diagrams.
For alloyed lowwear cast iron, analysis of the carbon
0.1
equivalent using the phase diagrams is required. The
0 Co Ni Cr
Mn carbon equivalent G C for chromium is considerable.
–0.1
The chromium content in wearresistant cast iron may
–0.2 Cr Mo be 30%, and hence the overall carbon equivalent can
–0.3 not be correctly determined without taking account of
–0.4 V chromium.
–0.5 To elucidate the possible change in the carbon
equivalent of the cast iron on variation in the compo
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 sition within the limits established by the correspond
Carbon content, wt % ing GOST State Standard, we calculate the carbon
equivalent of ChKh22 cast iron. To this end, we deter
Fig. 2. Dependence of the carbon equivalents of the alloy mine the eutectic points on the polythermal cross sec
ing elements on the carbon content [7]. tions of the Fe–C–Si–Mn–Cr–V–Ti–P–S system
for carbon, with constant content of Si–Mn–Cr–V–
we show the dependence of the carbon equivalents on Ti–P–S corresponding to ChKh22 cast iron with
the carbon content according to the data in [7]. We see alloyingelement compositions corresponding to the
that, for elements such as Cu, Ni, Co, Mn, and Mo, lower limit, the mean composition, and the upper
the influence of the carbon content on the carbon limit in State Standard GOST 7769–82 (Fig. 3). The
equivalent is slight. This means that Eq. (1) applies for results given by Eq. (3) are summarized in Table 3.
such elements. For Si and Al and, in particular, for Cr Within the range permitted by State Standard
and V, the carbon equivalents depend greatly on the GOST 7769–82, ChKh22 cast iron differs not only in
carbon content. For example, for chromium, the car the eutectic point but also in phase composition. With
Cr variation in alloyingelement content from the lower
bon equivalent is G C = –1/(0.01 + CC) [7]. In cast to the upper limit, the eutectic point is shifted by about
iron containing 3% C, the carbon equivalent for chro 1% C. It is evident from Table 3 that the carbon equiv
Cr
mium is G C = –1/(0.01 + 3) = –0.332; in cast iron alent increases with increase in the content of alloying
Cr
elements. For wearresistant chromium cast iron, the
containing 4% C, G C = –1/(0.01 + 4) = –0.249. This carbon equivalent must be in the range CEq = 3.2–
means that the same quantity of chromium displaces 4.2% C, as shown in [8]. This guarantees satisfactory
the eutectic point by different amounts in cast iron of strength, impact strength, and wear resistance. The
different composition. best properties are observed for ChKh22 cast iron with

(a) (b) (c)

1350 L + Ti4C2S2
L + Ti4C2S2 L + Ti4C2S2
L + (Cr, Fe)7C3 + Ti4C2S2 L + γ + Ti4C2S2
L + (Cr, Fe)7C3 + Ti4C2S2
1300
Temperature, °C

L + γ + Ti4C2S2 2.90 2.40

3.36 L + γ + Ti4C2S2 L + (Cr, Fe)7C3 + Ti4C2S2

1250 L + γ + (Cr, Fe)7C3 + Ti4C2S2 L + γ + (Cr, Fe)7C3 + Ti4C2S2

L + γ + (Cr, Fe)7C3 + Ti4C2S2

1200 γ + (Cr, Fe)7C3 + Ti4C2S2 L + TiC+ γ + (Cr, Fe)7C3 + Ti4C2S2

L + MnS + γ+ (Cr, Fe)7C3 + Ti4C2S2
TiC+ γ + (Cr, Fe)7C3 + Ti4C2S2
MnS + γ + (Cr, Fe)7C3 + Ti4C2S2
1150
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
C content, wt % C content, wt % C content, wt %

Fig. 3. Polythermal cross sections of the phase diagram of the Fe–C–Si–Mn–Cr–V–Ti–P–S system with variable carbon con
tent and constant Si–Mn–Cr–V–Ti–P–S content, for ChKh22 cast iron with a composition corresponding to the lower limit
(a), the mean (b), and the upper limit (c) in State Standard GOST 7769–82.

STEEL IN TRANSLATION Vol. 41 No. 11 2011

 DETERMINING THE CARBON EQUIVALENT OF CAST IRON 899

Table 3. Calculated composition of ChKh22 cast iron according to State Standard GOST 7769–82, eutectic point, and
carbon equivalent from Eq. (3)
Content, wt %
Composition of
P S Ceut CEq
ChKh22 cast iron C Si Mn Cr V Ti
no more than
Lower limit 2.4 0.2 1.5 19.0 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.08 3.36 3.38
Mean composition 3.0 0.6 2.0 22.0 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.08 2.90 4.44
Upper limit 3.6 1.0 2.5 25.0 0.35 0.55 0.1 0.08 2.40 5.54

a composition at the lower limit recommended by
State Standard GOST 7769–82.
CONCLUSIONS
ThermoCalc software permits the determination
of the carbon equivalent in cast iron, with results that
match experimental data in the literature.
For cast iron containing Al, Cr, and V, the carbon
equivalent cannot be calculated from Eq. (1). Satisfac
tory results are only obtained by means of the phase
diagram and Eq. (3).
REFERENCES
1. Boldyrev, D.A. and Davydov, S.V., Lit. Ross., 2007,
no. 11, pp. 36–39.
2. Solyakov, D.A. and Boldin, A.N., Lit. Proizv., 2010,
no. 4, pp. 15–16.
3. Spravochnik po chugunnomu lit’yu (Handbook on Iron
Casting), Girshovich, N.G., Ed., Moscow: Mashino
stroenie, 1978.
4. ASM Handbook: Casting, Viswanathan, S., Ed., 1988,
vol. 15.
5. Afonaskin, A.V., Bystrov, M.V., Churkin, B.S., et al.,
Lit. Ross., 2011, no. 6, pp. 37–39.
6. Creese, R.C. and Healy, G.W., Metall. Mater. Trans. B,
1985, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 169–170.
7. Sil’man, G.I., Metallov. Term. Obrab. Met., 2002, no. 1,
pp. 26–29.
8. Shobolov, E.V., Kozlov, L.Ya., Romanov, L.M., et al.,
Metallov. Term. Obrab. Met., 1984, no. 7, pp. 16–18.

STEEL IN TRANSLATION Vol. 41 No. 11 2011

View publication stats