SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES

2002-01-0797

Component Testing and Materials Properties of Ductile Iron Brake Anchors

Alan P. Druschitz, Nathan J. Sochor and Brandon Reneau
Intermet Corporation

SAE 2002 World Congress Detroit, Michigan March 4-7, 2002

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs consent that copies of the paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition, however, that the copier pay a per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for resale. Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department. To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected books are abstracted and indexed in the Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISSN 0148-7191 Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group. Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA

2002-01-0797

Component Testing and Materials Properties of Ductile Iron Brake Anchors

Alan P. Druschitz, Nathan J. Sochor and Brandon Reneau
Intermet Corporation
Copyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT
During product development and production, product testing is often desirable to improve design robustness and verify consistent product performance. However, product testing is very complicated, requires highly specialized and trained personnel and utilizes expensive, dedicated equipment and facilities. This paper describes two brake anchor component tests (pull and impact) and the use of strain gaged components to determine the characteristics of the component during loading. Data for two brake anchor designs are presented and the component properties are then correlated with material properties and design. The combined effect of material properties and component design on performance is demonstrated. The data also demonstrates that apparently identical tests on different component designs can lead to misleading conclusions.

treatments). This type of data is needed by the design engineer when specifying material requirements, developing new components and developing component test specifications.

COMPONENT DESCRIPTION, TEST METHODS AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Two similar brake anchors designed by different companies and produced at the INTERMET Havana Foundry were selected for this study. The differences between these brake anchors were both obvious and not so obvious. The obvious difference was the shape of the thin tie bar. In Figure 1a, the tie bar of brake anchor A looks much thinner than the tie bar of brake anchor B. However, when the brake anchors are inclined, Figure 1b, the tie bars appear nearly identical. Actually, the tie bar of brake anchor A was thicker and had a well rounded cross section whereas the tie bar of brake anchor B had two flat surfaces incorporated into the tie bar for fast brake pad changes, which significantly reduced the cross section thickness, and formed relatively sharp corners. The cross sections of the two brake anchor designs are shown in Figure 2. The not so obvi ous difference was the microstructure and chemistry of the material. Basically, both brake anchor castings had similar microstructures with brake anchor A having slightly more pearlite, Figures 3a and b. However, brake anchor design B was prone to carbide formation at the edges of the tie bar due to sharp corners that cooled rapidly, Figure 4. Because of this design problem, higher silicon content was used to produce brake anchor B, which resulted in lower pearlite content at approximately the same hardness.

BACKGROUND
Product testing has been and will continue to be a crucial part of the product development cycle since current math models cannot fully take into account variable material properties and cannot fully account for all loading conditions that might be encountered in service. For example, castings cool at different rates in different locations and therefore always have varying mechanical properties. Also, the loading conditions in the foundry or machining line often exceed those encountered in service. Since a math model can only calculate the effect of the loads input into the model and the material properties assigned to the component, unforeseen loading conditions and unforeseen material property variations may produce early failures. For this study, a relatively simple component (brake anchor) was selected to demonstrate how design and material properties interact. For this demonstration, a variety of tests were performed: 1) one brake anchor design was tested in two different loading conditions (pull and impact) and 2) two brake anchor designs were tested in numerous material conditions (as-cast and various heat

anchor rotated under the bolt, the measured load was a function of bolt torque. Production bolts, a specified torque value and a specified thread locking adhesive setup time were used. During the pull test, the thin tie bar broke followed by failure of the thicker section and sometimes the upper bolt. Looking more closely at the sample orientation, a clear difference in the location of a reduced section or pocket on the thicker section of the driver side and passenger side castings is evident. The importance of this difference will be discussed later.

Figure 1a. Straight-on view of brake anchor designs A and B.

1 mm
Figure 2. Cross sections through the tie bar of brake anchor designs A (left) and B (right). A mm scale is on the bottom of the photograph.

Figure 1b. Inclined view of brake anchor designs A and B.

Two tests were selected for this study: pull and impact. The pull test simulated the component loading on the vehicle and the impact test simulated the worst case handling condition that might be encountered in the foundry or machine shop. The pull test loads the brake anchor under conditions similar to those seen in service. Here, a rigid fixture, which would be the steering knuckle on a vehicle, was attached to the lower, moveable ram on a hydraulic load frame, the brake anchor was bolted to the fixture, the load arm swung into position (this arm was connected to the upper, fixed ram) and the brake anchor pulled to failure, Figures 5a and b. In this test, the load was applied offcenter and the brake anchor rotated under the attachment bolts. This produced a bending stress. Since the brake

Figure 3a. Typical microstructure in the tie bar region of brake anchor design A showing well formed graphite nodules in a matrix of ~20% ferrite and 80% pearlite.

data, the energy required to initiate a crack (area under the curve up to the point of maximum load) and the total energy absorbed (area under the entire curve) was calculated by numerical integration. These values can be compared to various loading events in the foundry and machine shop to determine if damage might occur. A typical load versus displacement curve is shown in Figure 7. The orientation of the tie bar cross section was critical in this test and thus, an additional angled support was necessary to allow the two different components to be tested under identical loading conditions.

Figure 3b. Typical microstructure in the tie bar region of brake anchor design B showing well formed graphite nodules in a matrix of ~30% ferrite and 70% pearlite.

Figure 5a. Typical pull test set-up.

Figure 4. Carbides in tie bar of brake anchor design B.

The impact test was developed to simulate the worst case loading condition that might occur in the production foundry or machine shop. In this test, the brake anchor was attached to a rigid fixture and a hydraulic ram punched the thin tie bar at a velocity of 254 mm per second, Figure 6. The load as a function of ram displacement was measured and recorded. From this

Figure 5b. Close-up of pull test set-up showing dial gages used for displacement measurement.

The casting microstructure and chemistry, which determined material properties, had a significant effect on component performance. To vary the properties in a controlled manner, samples of both casting designs were sub-critically annealed (softened), normalized (hardened) or normalized and tempered. The microstructures were characterized using a fully automated Clemex image analyzer. All castings had better t an 90% nodularity. h The tensile properties where determined from 6.3 mm diameter, 25.4 mm gage length tensile bars cut from castings. Five tensile bars of each condition were tested in accordance with ASTM E8 and the results averaged. The material properties of the as-cast and heat treated castings are listed in Table I.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 6. Typical impact test set-up.

10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 Load, N 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7

Relative Displacement, mm

Figure 7. Typical load versus displacement curve for the impact test.

PULL TEST. The orientation of the specimen in the pull test fixture resulted in a difference in the measured load at failure of as much as 36%. The reason for this difference was the location of the fracture. Lower load at failure values were measured when fracture occurred through the thin pocket on the thicker section. Figures 8a and b and 9a and b show the pull test specimens before and after testing. This was not an unexpected result since the amount of bending caused by rotation of the component during loading was greater near the load application point (upper half of the casting). An unforeseen consequence of this loading variation was rapid deterioration of the fixture for the orientation shown in Figures 9a and b. Due to the significantly higher load, the bolt hole tended to elongate with a subsequent loss of clamping ability, Figure 10. As the amount of bolt hole deformation increased, the measured load decreased. After 30 tests (five months), the measured average load at failure decreased by 11%. Since the purpose of this test was to verify that the production process was not changing, this apparent loss in load carrying capacity could be erroneously interpreted as a manufacturing problem instead of fixture wear. For the other fixture and orientation, the lower maximum load produced no significant fixture wear and stable month-tomonth average load at failure readings, which verified that the production process was not changing significantly from month to month. Typical average maximum load results are shown in Table II.

Table I. Average Material Properties of Ductile Iron Brake Anchors

Design A A A B B B B As-cast Normalized Normalized and 675oC tempered As-cast 730oC sub-critically annealed Normalized Normalized and 675oC tempered Condition Microstructure 20% F, 80% P >99% pearlite spheroidized pearlite 30% F, 70% P >99% ferrite >99% pearlite spheroidized pearlite UTS, MPa 572 824 706 603 459 855 790 YS, MPa 366 517 453 373 311 522 459 El, % 6.0 3.6 3.4 9.9 17.7 4.3 7.2 E, GPa 179 170 172 177 175 172 170 Hardness, BHN 183 270 240 190 157 258 242

Figure 8a. Brake anchor design B driver side in the pull-test fixture before testing. Figure 9a. Brake anchor design B passenger side in the pull-test fixture before testing.

pocket

pocket

Figure 8b. Brake anchor design B driver side in the pull-test fixture after testing. Note: brake anchor fractures through the reduced section or pocket.

Figure 9b. Brake anchor design B passenger side in the pull-test fixture after testing. Note: brake anchor fractures through the full section and not through the reduced section.

Table II. Monthly Average Maximum Load in the Pull Test (average of 6 samples).
Month Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Design B driver side 53,090 54,495 --53,997 52,943 54,233 48,859 50,625 50,203 Design B passenger side 72,208* 70,077 --69,779 66,061 64,001 66,892* 65,193 62,800 67,126

Overall 52,306 * replaced passenger side fixture

IMPACT TEST. For brake anchor design B, the orientation (direction of applied load relative to the cross section of the tie bar) in the impact test fixture resulted in substantial measurement differences. Comparing the values for when the load was applied perpendicular to the component to the values for when the load was applied perpendicular to the tie bar, the average measured maximum load was 39% higher, the crack initiation energy was 17% higher and the total absorbed energy was 23% higher. Thus, the properties of the component were substantially overstated when the load was applied perpendicular to the component rather than perpendicular to the tie bar (worst case orientation). The impact data as a function of orientation is listed in Table III. A similar effect was noted when strain gages were applied to the tie bar and load versus deflection measured. The load versus deflection curves indicated that brake anchor design B was stiffer, i.e., higher load for a given deflection when the load was applied perpendicular to the component rather than perpendicular to the tie bar. Also, the data for brake anchor design A fell in-between the two sets of curves for brake anchor design B. Thus, when the components were tested in the same fixture, brake anchor design B appeared to be stiffer than brake anchor design A. However, when both brake anchors were tested in the worst case loading orientation (load applied perpendicular to the tie bar), brake anchor design A was shown to actually be stiffer than brake anchor design B. Typical load versus deflection curves are shown in Figure 11.

Figure 10. Deformation of pull test fixture for brake anchor design B passenger side.

Design B -- drivers side, loaded perpendicular to tie bar Design B -- passenger side, loaded perpendicular to tie bar Design B -- passenger side, loaded perpendicular to component Design A, loaded perpendicular to tie bar

7,000 6,000 5,000 Load, N 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 Strain Figure 11. Typical load versus deflection curves for strain gaged samples. 0.008 0.01 0.012

Table III. Effect of Loading Orientation on the Impact Properties of Brake Anchor Design B. Average Maximum Load (N) Load Perpendicular Component Load Perpendicular Tie Bar to to 12,827 9,196 Average Crack Initiation Energy (joules) 46.15 39.53 Average Deflection at Crack Initiation (mm) 5.08 6.97 Average Total Absorbed Energy (joules) 77.23 62.73 Average Total Deflection (mm) 10.74 14.00

Table IV. Impact Properties of Ductile Iron Brake Anchors Tested with the Load Applied Perpendicular to the Tie Bar. Average Maximum Load (N) 11,597 14,697 12,878 9,196 7,744 11,134 10,542 Average Crack Initiation Energy (joules) 48.47 69.24 121.87 39.53 85.59 52.15 95.42 Average Deflection at Crack Initiation (mm) 6.79 7.68 12.73 6.97 14.30 7.70 12.84 Average Total Absorbed Energy (joules) 150.33 173.10 215.85 62.73 132.03 89.47 146.68 Average Total Deflection (mm) 26.68 26.18 27.40 14.00 26.13 14.83 24.48

Design A A A B B B B

Condition As-cast Normalized Normalized and tempered As-cast Sub-critically annealed Normalized Normalized and tempered

Casting microstructure and chemistry, which determined material properties, and casting design had a significant effect on component performance. Ferrite is soft, weak and very ductile, pearlite is harder, stronger but less ductile, and carbides are very hard, very strong and brittle. Silicon decreases the amount of pearlite, increases the strength of ferrite and suppresses carbides. Therefore, the combination of material (microstructure and chemistry) and casting design determined the ultimate load bearing capacity and the ability to absorb impact. When the two designs were compared using similar loading conditions and similar microstructure, brake anchor design A absorbed more energy initiating a crack (22.6% for as-cast, 32.8% for normalized and 27.6% for normalized and tempered) and more total energy (139.6% for as-cast, 93.5% for normalized and 47.2% for normalized and tempered) than brake anchor design B. The impact properties as a function of heat treatment and design are listed in Table IV. The sub-critical annealing (softening) heat treatment produced a slightly weaker but significantly tougher component that was not as stiff as the as-cast component, i.e., the load required to initiate a crack

decreased slightly, the energy absorbed during fracture increased significantly, and the amount of deflection during fracture increased significantly. The normalizing (hardening) heat treatment produced a significantly stronger and slightly tougher component that was approximately the same stiffness as the as-cast component, i.e., the load required to initiate a crack increased significantly, the energy absorbed during fracture increased slightly, and the amount of deflection during fracture was about the same. The normalizing and tempering heat treatment produced a slightly stronger and significantly tougher component that was not as stiff as the as-cast component, i.e., the load required to initiate a crack increased slightly, the energy absorbed during fracture increased significantly, and the amount of deflection during fracture increased significantly.

CONCLUSIONS
1. In this study, a test that accurately simulated the orientation and loading conditions on a vehicle was a valuable proof test but was not the most appropriate test for verifying that consistent product was being produced month-to-month. For verifying product consistency, a test that produced consistent results was critical. In this study, the loading conditions on brake anchor design B - passenger side were such that deformation of the test fixture could occur and this deformation significantly affected the test data. To properly compare similar components, the orientation of the applied load must be consistent (preferably in the worst case orientation). In this study, brake anchor design A exhibited consistently better impact properties due to a slightly larger cross section and a more uniform cross sectional shape that minimized stress risers and the formation of carbides. Heat treatment had a significant effect on the energy required to initiate a crack and the total energy absorbed during fracture.

2.

3.

4.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dale tenPas (INTERMET Technical Center, Lynchburg, VA), Ed Druschitz (summer intern) and Evan Shockley (Governors School intern) for performing the pull and impact tests, strain gage tests, metallography and tensile tests. Melanie Folks is also acknowledged for performing the various heat treatments on the castings evaluated in this study.

CONTACT
Dr. Alan P. Druschitz received his PhD in Metallurgical Engineering in 1982 from the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL. He is currently the Director of Materials Research and Development for INTERMET Corporation. He is located at the INTERMET Technical Center, Lynchburg, VA 24502. He can be reached at adruschitz@notes.intermet.com or (434) 237-8749. Before joining INTERMET Corporation, he was a staff research engineer for General Motors Corporation for fourteen years. He has been a member of the American Foundry Society for thirteen years, the Society of Automotive Engineers for twenty years and ASM International for twenty-five years. He is currently the Vice President of the Ductile Iron Society, a member of the Industrial Advisory Board for the Central Virginia Governors School and a Member of the Governors Board of Transportation Safety for the Commonwealth of Virginia.