Materials Science and Engineering A 393 (2005) 310314

On-line prediction of carbon equivalent on high-nickel austenitic ductile iron

Qin Hua , Yuhui Zhang, Yongshen Yan
Department of Material Science and Engineering, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200072, Peoples Republic of China Received 14 July 2004; accepted 25 October 2004

Abstract In this paper, experiments have been made on high-nickel ductile iron for controlling the property by the computer-aided thermal analysis system. The experimental results have been analyzed with statistics and applied to on-line predicting and controlling carbon equivalent, which obtained satisfying result. The experiments show that the relationship between the carbon equivalent of high-nickel ductile iron and its liquidus temperature is linear, which can be expressed as: CEL = 15.7826 0.0096575 TL . In order to ensure the tensile strength greater than 400 MPa with the probability up to 99%, the liquidus temperature of high-nickel austenitic ductile iron must be in the range of [12031226 C]. 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Carbon equivalent; High-nickel ductile iron; On-line prediction; Cooling curve

1. Introduction Despite its cost, high-nickel austenitic ductile iron is one of the most widely utilized materials in corrosive environments due to its excellent heat and corrosive resistance [1]. An abnormal type of graphite may occur in high-nickel austenitic ductile iron with nickel contents ranging from 13 to 37%. This type of graphite forms as ne ake-like chunks in the most slowly cooled portions of casting. It was reported that the carbon, silicon and nickel contents in austenitic ductile iron are adjusted according to the formula: [2]. TC% + 0.2 Si% + 0.06 Ni% 4.4 (TC% = total carbon %) If not, the presence of chuck graphite can be detected in many cases. According to ANSI/ASTM A43989, D5-S high-nickel austenitic ductile iron contains: C% 2.30; Si% 4.905.00; Ni% 34.037.0; the left-side value of formula is easily over 4.4. The lower the carbon content, the longer is the

dendrite arm and castings will exist much shrinkage [3]. So, it is important to control the level of carbon equivalent for the high quality of high-nickel austenitic ductile iron castings. The thermal analysis used to study Mg-treated nodular graphite iron that can be traced to the early 1970s [4]. Computer-aided thermal analysis system can provide information about the composition of alloy and determine degree of modication and grain rening on aluminum alloy and graphite morphology on cast iron [5,6]. The main objective of the research effort presented in this paper has been to set up the relationship between solidication model and carbon equivalent, in order to control the composition and property of high-nickel austenitic ductile iron castings.

2. Experimental procedures The composition of metal charge was C%: 1.52.0, Si%: 4.55.0, Mn%: 0.150.20, Ni%: 34.037.0, Cr%: 1.62.0, P% 0.02, S 0.02, which was melted by coreless induction furnace of 150 kg capacity. The melt was superheated at 16001620 C. After superheating the melt was treated in the ladle with nodulizing alloys (magnesiumnickel ferrosil-

Corresponding author. E-mail address: qhua@mail.shu.edu.cn (Q. Hua).

0921-5093/$ see front matter 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2004.10.029

Q. Hua et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 393 (2005) 310314

311

Fig. 1. Structure of thermal analysis system.

icon) by the trigger method. After the reaction was completed and slagged off, post inoculation was performed with 75% ferrosilicon at 15301550 C. The shell cup of 50 mm in diameter and 60 mm in height, into which a type of RtRh thermocouple was inserted and poured and a cooling curve was recorded by computer-aided analysis system (Fig. 1). At the same time other samples were poured for microstructure and mechanical property.

curve was much undulant, it may help to determine the critical point. 3.2. The effect of carbon equivalent on the character of cooling curve As known to all, cast iron with different carbon equivalent has a different form of cooling curve. In general, the lower of carbon equivalent the higher the temperature of austenite arrest and the lower eutectic action, the same result also take place in high-nickel austenitic ductile iron shown in Fig. 3.The carbon equivalent of high-nickel austenitic ductile iron can be calculated as the following formula: [9] CEL = C% + 0.33(%Si) + 0.047(Ni%) 0.0055(%Ni)(%Si) In this paper, the carbon equivalent was also calculated as the formula and the data in Table A.1 were the result of this experiment (see Appendix A). 3.3. Linear regression Suppose that the relationship between carbon equivalent and liquidus temperature is linear, by the least squares method

3. Experimental result and discussion 3.1. Typical thermal analysis curve of high-nickel austenitic ductile iron Fig. 2 shows a cooling curve, a rst-derivative curve also called cooling rate curve and a second-derivative curve also called cooling acceleration curve, which contain a great deal of information about solidication of cast iron. Two platforms at the cooling curve, TL (temperature of liquidus arrest) and TEU (temperature of eutectic undercooling), are widely applied at pouring station for quality control [7]. Two peaks at the rst-derivative curve, which are called austenite peak and eutectic peak, can be used to calculate the amount of austenite and eutectic [8]. Though the cooling acceleration

Fig. 2. Typical thermal analysis curves.

312

Q. Hua et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 393 (2005) 310314

3.4. Signicant test According to the theory of statistics, if B Sxx > t/2 (n 2) the linear regression is signicant, where: = Qe =
i=1

Qe /n 2,
n

a variance of point estimation;

2 n

(CEL CEL) 2
i=1

(TL TL )2 ,

a residual sum of squares; n, times for experiment; t/2 (n 2), Students distribution with n degrees of freedom against (1 ), which is a condence level. Thus, = Qe /n 2 = 3.0106 102 ,

Fig. 3. Cooling curves of different carbon equivalent.

a regression linear formula as following is derived from the data of Table A.2 (see Appendix A). CEL = A + B TL where B=
27 i=1 Sxy 27 i=1 Sxx

regarded as the error of carbon equivalent So, B Sxx = 25.656 > t/2 (n 2) = 2.787 It is clear that the linear regression is considerable condence. The t/2 (n 2) can be resulted from the table of probability points of t distribution [10] and the condence level (1 ) is 0.99. 3.5. Carbon equivalent predicting and controlling In order to predict the carbon equivalent of high-nickel austenitic ductile iron accurately, it is necessary to determine a reasonable interval of carbon equivalent for a certain liquidus temperature, TL0 . According to statistical law, the probability of coverage of carbon equivalent against certain TL0 is as follows: P{CEL (TL0 ) < CEL0 < CEL + (TL0 )} = 1 ; where (TL0 ) = t/2 (n 2) 1 + CEL = A + B TL0 . If 1 = 0.99 and 1190 C < TL0 < 1240 C, then the coverage of CEL0 is shown in Fig. 5. When TL0 < 1199 C the probability of carbon equivalent within [4.11, 4.29] is 99%. Because, CEL0 = A + B TL0 t/2 (n 2) 1+ 1 (TL0 TL ) , + n Sxx
2

= 9.6575 103

Sxy = (TLi TL )(CELi CEL) Sxx = (TL TL )

2

A = CEL B TL = 15.7826 Thus, the rst linear regression formula can be described as: CEL = 15.7826 0.0096575 TL In Fig. 4, its shape is shown and the points are the data of this experiment.

1 (TL0 TL ) ; + n Sxx

Fig. 4. The regression line for carbon equivalent and liquidus temperature.

Q. Hua et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 393 (2005) 310314

313

Fig. 5. Predicting range of carbon equivalent.

Fig. 6. The relationship between carbon equivalent and tensile strength.

If the value of TL0 is very close to TL0 and n is bigger enough, then 1+ Thus, CEL0 = A + B TL0 t/2 (n 2). In order to guarantee the tensile strength of casting is greater than 400 MPa, the carbon equivalent must be controlled inside [3.86, 4.25%], since the relationship between carbon equivalent and tensile strength is shown as Fig. 6 in this experiment. In order to ensure the carbon equivalent within [3.86, 4.25%], an interval of liquidus temperature must be determined, so liquidus temperature is controlled inside [TL1 , TL2 ]. Thus, TL1 = CEL1 A + t/2 (n 2)/B = 1203 TL2 = CEL2 A t/2 (n 2)/B = 1226 here CEL1 = 3.86% CEL2 = 4.25%. If the range of liquidus temperature is within [12031226 C], the carbon equivalent is certainly inside [3.86, 4.25%], that 1 (TL0 TL ) + 1; n Sxx
2

is to say, the tensile strength of high-nickel ductile cast iron is greater than 400 MPa with the probability up to 99%.

4. Conclusions (1) It is obvious that the relationship between the carbon equivalent of high-nickel ductile iron and its liquidus temperature is linear, which can be expressed as: CEL = 15.7826 0.0096575 TL . (2) In order to ensure the tensile strength greater than 400 MPa with the probability up to 99%, the liquidus temperature must be inside the range of [1203 1226 C]. (3) By the computer-aided thermal analysis system on-line prediction of carbon equivalent on high-nickel ductile iron is available, the predicting precision of carbon equivalent is within 3.01%.

Acknowledgments The author is grateful to Professor Zhenghua Zhu and Zhenghua Pang of Shanghai University, for their encouragement and suggestions over the years on the thermal analysis in the foundry. Much appreciation is also expressed to Yimin Wang, Dewei Yao, Gouhua Cai and Liuqian Jiang, who offered great help in this experiment.

314

Q. Hua et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 393 (2005) 310314 Table A.2 (Continued ) No. of furnace 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Average CEL 3.666 3.81427 3.93548 3.86975 4.26604 4.10191 4.20548 4.13832 3.89888 4.09604 4.22486 4.12911 4.05463 3.88001 4.13832 4.02874 4.06775 4.1203 4.19665 4.0121 4.15858 4.19684 4.16341 4.040217 TL 1250 1236 1230 1234 1187 1209 1198 1209 1229 1208 1199 1209 1218 1232 1208 1215 1208 1207 1203 1223 1208 1195 1206 1215.889 34044.89 Syy Sxx Sxy 12.7533 4.53708 1.47373 3.08152 6.53247 0.42715 2.96209 0.6784 1.84872 0.4427 3.12419 0.61487 0.03071 2.5759 0.77672 0.01013 0.21923 0.71467 2.02079 0.19808 0.93675 3.27787 1.22172 61.7759

Appendix A See Tables A.1 and A.2.

Table A.1 Composition, carbon equivalent and liquidus temperature No. of furnace S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 C (%) 1.60 1.77 1.57 1.50 1.41 1.48 1.73 1.54 1.97 1.78 1.91 1.82 1.53 1.80 1.90 1.81 1.74 1.60 1.82 1.69 1.76 1.78 1.87 1.70 1.88 1.93 1.84 Si (%) 4.87 4.93 5.26 4.40 4.46 4.97 3.89 4.98 4.78 4.98 4.70 5.01 5.01 4.75 4.93 4.96 4.87 4.74 5.01 5.18 4.82 5.00 5.00 4.98 4.56 4.49 4.89 Ni (%) 34.0 34.2 38.6 34.9 34.9 35.3 36.0 35.0 34.7 34.6 35.2 34.2 36.8 34.9 35.1 34.6 35.0 34.2 34.2 34.0 35.0 35.4 34.7 34.1 35.3 35.2 35.3 CEL 3.89 4.08 4.00 3.75 3.67 3.81 3.94 3.87 4.27 4.10 4.21 4.14 3.90 4.10 4.22 4.13 4.05 3.88 4.14 4.03 4.07 4.12 4.20 4.01 4.16 4.20 4.16 TL 1234 1211 1218 1245 1250 1236 1230 1234 1187 1209 1198 1209 1229 1208 1199 1209 1218 1232 1208 1215 1208 1207 1203 1223 1208 1195 1206

0.13987 1162.81 0.05095 404.01 0.01092 198.81 0.02899 327.61 0.05109 835.21 0.00383 47.61 0.02738 320.41 0.00967 47.61 0.01992 171.61 0.00314 62.41 0.03417 285.61 0.00794 47.61 2.14E-04 4.41 0.0256 259.21 0.00967 62.41 1.27E-04 0.81 7.70E-04 62.41 0.00645 79.21 0.02454 166.41 7.78E-04 50.41 0.01406 62.41 0.0246 436.81 0.01523 98.01 0.022936

236.9137 2.28799

Summation 113.1261

0.619259 6396.67

References
[1] D.W. Zeng, C.S. Xie, K.C. Yung, Mater. Sci. Eng. A 333 (2002) 223231. [2] I. Karsay, R.D. Schelleng, AFS Trans. 69 (1961) 725730. [3] S. Zeji, T. Ji, S. Guiqiao, Foundry Technol. 24 (2) (2003) 9193. [4] P. Zhu, R.W. Smith, AFS Trans. 103 (1995) 601609. [5] K.G. Upadhya, D.M. Stefanesuc, K. Lieu, D.P. Yeager, AFS Trans. 97 (1989) 6166. [6] S.L. Backerud, G.K. Sigworth, AFS Trans. 97 (1989) 459464. [7] I.-G. Chen, D.M. Stefanescu, AFS Trans. 92 (1984) 947964. [8] E. Fras, W. Kapturkiewicz, A. Burbielko, H.F. Lopez, AFS Trans. 101 (1993) 505511. [9] R.D. Schelleng, AFS Trans. 68 (1960) 301303. [10] K. Chen, Applied Probability and Statistics, Tsinghua Universitys Publishing House, 2000, pp. 360362.

Table A.2 Data of regression No. of furnace 1 2 3 4 CEL 3.89441 4.07697 4.0033 3.74772 TL 1234 1211 1218 1245 Syy 0.0212 0.00137 0.00135 0.08543 Sxx 327.61 24.01 4.41 846.81 Sxy 2.63518 0.18114 0.07707 8.50535