Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333

Solidication and modeling of cast ironA short history of the dening moments
Doru M. Stefanescu
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA Received in revised form 2 August 2005

Abstract Human civilization has evolved from the Stone Age, through the Bronze Age to reach the Iron Age around 1500 B.C. There are many to contend that today we are living in the age of engineered materials, yet the importance of iron castings continues to support the thesis that we are still in the Iron Age. Cast iron, the rst man-made composite, is at least 2500 years old. It remains the most important casting material, with over 70% of the total world tonnage. The main reasons for cast iron longevity are its wide range of mechanical and physical properties coupled with its competitive price. This paper is a review of the fundamentals of solidication of iron-base materials and of the mathematical models that describe them, starting with the seminal paper by Oldeld, the rst to attempt modeling of microstructure evolution during solidication, to the prediction of mechanical properties. The latest analytical models for irregular eutectics such as cast iron as well as numerical models with microstructure output are discussed. However, since the space does not permit an extensive description of the multitude of models available today, the emphasis is on model performance rather than the mathematics of model formulation. Also, because of space constrains, white iron and defect occurrence will not be covered. 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cast iron; Microstructure; Mechanical properties; Solidication; Analytical and computational modelling of solidication

1. Introduction While the primeval potter was the rst to modify the state of matter, he left little if any trace in the mythological and archeological record. Thus, according to Eliade [1], the starting point in understanding the behavior of primitive societies in relation to matter must be the relationship of primitive man to mineral substances, in particular that of the iron-worker. Primitive people worked with meteoric iron long before learning to extract iron from iron ore. The Sumerian word AN.BAR, the oldest word designating iron, is made up of the pictogram sky and re. Similar terminology is found in Egypt metal from heaven and with the Hittites black iron from sky. Yet metallurgy did not establish itself until the secret of smelting magnetite or hematite was discovered, followed by the art of hardening the metal through quenching. The beginning of this metallurgy on an industrial scale can be situated at 12001000 B.C. in the mountains of Armenia [1]. In the European tradition it was St. P ran, the patron saint of mines, who invented smelting e of metals.
E-mail address: doru@coe.eng.ua.edu. 0921-5093/$ see front matter 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2005.08.180

Metal workers were so important in early history that sometimes they raised to the level of royalty. According to certain sources, Genghis Khan was a simple smith before acceding to power. In ancient Java, the genealogy of metallurgists, like that of princes, goes back to god. And, in most ancient cultures, the metallurgist was believed to have a direct link to the divine, if not of divine origin himself. Thus, it is with a certain reverence that I approached the task of reviewing the long history of the rst man-made composite, cast iron, from its archeologically documented beginning some 2500 years ago, to the age of virtual cast iron, where its structure and properties are the outcome of computational exercises. 2. A short history of an old material The earliest dated iron casting is a lion produced in China in 502 B.C. Introduction of cast iron in Europe did not occur until about 12001450 A.D. Remarkable European cast iron artifacts include the sewer pipes in Versailles (1681) and the iron bridge near Coalbrookdale in England (1779). Before the invention of microscope in 1860, only two types of iron were known, based

D.M. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333

323

Today, cast iron remains the most important casting material accounting for about 70% of the total world casting tonnage. The main reasons for cast iron longevity are the wide range of mechanical and physical properties associated with its competitive price. 3. Critical discoveries in understanding the solidication of cast iron Before society accepts to continue sinking resources in the study of solidication rather than of global warming it is important to understand why solidication is important. Some of the quick answers include: solidication processing allows microstructure engineering; solidication determines casting soundness; heat treatment is scarcely used for cast iron; most solidication defects cannot be corrected through heat treatment. In summary, solidication is the main driver of casting properties. A good resource for the early discoveries that propelled cast iron in its present position is Piwowarskys famous monograph published in 1942 [4]. According to this source, by 1892 Ledebur recognized the role of silicon on the solidication structure of cast iron, proposing the rst equation correlating the carbon and silicon content: (C + Si)/1.5 = 4.24.4. Then, in 1924, Maurer designed his famous structural diagram that established direct correlation between the C and Si content of the iron and its as-cast microstructure. The rst attempt to understand the solidication microstructure was apparently that of Roll, who in 1934 outlined the primary crystals using Baumann etching to show the position of Mn suldes (Fig. 2). 3.1. Nucleation and undercooling Solidication starts with nucleation, which is strongly affected by undercooling. Extensive work by Patterson and Ammann [5] demonstrated that the effect of undercooling on the eutectic cell count depends on the way the undercooling occurs. If undercooling is the result of increased cooling rate, then the number of cells increases (Fig. 3). The opposite is true if

Fig. 1. Correlation between the Mg residual and graphite shape [3].

on the appearance of their fracture: white and gray. Our knowledge of cast iron was extremely limited for a long time. In 1896, the rst paper on cast iron to be published in the newly created Journal of the American Foundrymens Association [2] stated the following: The physical properties of cast iron are shrinkage, strength, deection, set, chill, grain and hardness. Tensile test should not be used for cast iron, but should be conned to steel and other ductile materials. Compression test should be made, but is generally neglected, from the common erroneous impression that the resistance of a small cube or cylinder, which is enormous, is always in excess of loads which can be applied. It took another 50 years for ductile iron to be discovered (19381940 independently by Adey, Millis and Morrogh). The major discoveries of cast iron ended in the 1970s with the recognition of compacted graphite (CG) iron as a grade in its own merit. With that, the dependency of graphite shape on magnesium or cerium content was fully understood (see for example Fig. 1 [3]).

Fig. 2. Rolls schematic representation of position of MnS around grains and dendrites (after [4]).

324

D.M. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333

Fig. 3. The effect of undercooling on the eutectic cell count [5].

undercooling is a consequence of the depletion of nuclei through superheating. While the analysis of solidication events was based for many years on indirect observations, it was not until 1961 when through quenching from semisolid state, Oldeld [6] was able to quantify the nucleation and growth of eutectic grains. These experiments are the beginning of the effort of building the extensive database required for solidication modeling of cast iron. Understanding nucleation was and continues to be the subject of extensive studies. Attempting to explain the efciency of metals such as Ca, Ba and Sr in the inoculation of lamellar graphite (LG) iron, Lux [7] suggested in 1968 that, when introduced in molten iron, these metals form saltlike carbides that develop epitaxial planes with the graphite, and thus constitute nuclei for graphite (Fig. 4). Later, Weis [8] assumed that nucleation of LG occurs on SiO2 oxides formed by heteroge-

neous catalysis of CaO, Al2 O3 , and oxides of other alkaline metals. A similar theory of double-layered nucleation was proposed at the same time for spheroidal graphite (SG). Using the results of SEM analysis, Jacobs et al. [9] contended that SG nucleates on duplex sulde-oxide inclusions (1 m dia.); the core is made of Ca Mg or Ca Mg Sr suldes, while the outer shell is made of complex Mg Al Si Ti oxides. This idea was further developed by Skaland et al. [10]. They argued that SG nuclei are suldes (MgS, CaS) covered by Mg silicates (e.g., MgOSiO2 ) or oxides that have low potency (large disregistry). After inoculation with FeSi that contains another metal (Me) such as Al, Ca, Sr or Ba, hexagonal silicates (MeOSiO2 or MeOAl2 O3 2SiO2 ) form at the surface of the oxides, with coherent/semicoherent low energy interfaces between substrate and graphite (Fig. 5). Since graphite is in most cases an eutectic phase, a clear possibility of its nucleation on the primary austenite exist. Rejection of C and Si by the solidifying austenite imposes a high solutal undercooling in the proximity of the phase, favorable to graphite nucleation. Yet, little is known on this subject, mostly because of the difculties to outline the primary austenite through metallographic techniques. 3.2. Crystallization of graphite from the liquid The debate on the preferred growth direction of graphite seems to have been initiated by Herfurth [11] who in 1965 postulated that the change from lamellar to spheroidal graphite occurs because of the change in the ratio between growth on the [1 0 1 0] face (A direction) and growth on the [0 0 0 1] face of the graphite prism (C direction). Experimental evidence for growth on both of these directions was provided by Lux et al. [12] in 1974 (Fig. 6). Assuming that the preferred growth direction for the SG is the A direction, Sadocha and Gruzleski [13] postulated the circumferential growth of graphite spheroids, which seems to be the most common.

Fig. 4. Growth of graphite on the epitaxial planes of saltlike carbides [7].

D.M. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333

325

Fig. 5. Low potency (left) and high potency (right) nuclei for SG iron [10].

Today it is generally accepted that the spheroidal shape is the natural growth habit of graphite in liquid iron. LG is a modied shape, the modiers being sulfur and oxygen. They affect graphite growth through some surface adsorption mechanism [14]. 3.3. Solidication of the irongraphite eutectic While considerable effort was deployed to understand the solidication of the stable (Fegraphite) and metastable (Fe Fe3 C) eutectics, because of space restrictions only the former will be discussed in some detail. One of the most important concepts in understanding the variety of microstructures that can occur during the solidication of cast iron is that of the asymmetric coupled phase diagram, which describes non-equilibrium solidication. Such diagrams explain for example the presence of primary austenite dendrites in the microstructure of hypereutectic irons. The theoretical

construction of these types of diagrams for cast iron was rst demonstrated by Lux et al. [15] in 1975, and then documented experimentally by Jones and Kurz [16] in 1980. They succeeded in constructing such diagrams for pure Fe C alloys solidifying white or with ake graphite. For a more detailed discussion on this subject the reader could use reference [14]. In 1949, which is very early after the discovery of SG iron, Patterson and Scheil used experimental ndings to state that SG forms in the melt and is later encapsulated in a shell. This was later conrmed by Sch bel [17] through quenching and o centrifuging experiments. In 1953, Scheil and H tter [18] meau sured the radii of the graphite and the shell and concluded that they develop such as to conserve a constant ratio (r /rGr = 2.3) throughout the microstructure. This ratio was conrmed theoretically by Wetterfall et al. [19] who preformed calculations for the steady-state diffusion-controlled growth of graphite. Many other theories that did not gain wide acceptance in the science community were advanced over the years. An exam-

Fig. 6. Experimental evidence of graphite growth along the A or C direction and schematic representation of possible mechanisms. (a) Growth of graphite along the A direction and (b) growth of graphite along the C direction [12].

326

D.M. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333

Fig. 7. Inuence of composition and solidication velocity on the morphology of the S/L interface. (a) Schematic representation [23,26] and (b) DS experiments [27].

ple is the gas bubble theory postulated by Karsay [20], which infers that a precipitating gas phase provides the phase boundary required for graphite crystallization. Austenite precipitates then at the graphitegas interface. Directional solidication (DS) experiments generated signicant information on the mechanism of microstructure formation. Lakeland and Hogan [21] produced the rst composition versus thermal gradient/solidication velocity ratio (CG/V) diagram for FG iron in 1968. The compositional variable was sulfur. It took another 18 years before the diagram was expanded to include SG and compacted graphite (CG) iron (%MgV) [22] and then extended to incorporate white iron (%CeG/V) [23]. Measurements of the average eutectic lamellar spacing in LG iron [21,24] demonstrated that it does not behave like a regular eutectic, since the average spacing was about an order of magnitude higher than predicted by JacksonHunt for regular eutectics. Using the knowledge accumulated from DS experiments performed by others as well as by themselves, and some ideas from the earlier work of Rickert and Engler [25], Stefanescu and collaborators [23,26] summarized the inuence of the amount of solute on the morphology of the solidliquid (S/L) interface of graphitic iron as shown in Fig. 7a. This concept was partially validated through DS experiments by Li et al. [27] (Fig. 7b). Some interesting analogies were made by comparing images obtained from SEM analysis of microshrinkage in SG iron [28] with results of phase-led modeling of dendrites. The austenite growing into the liquid will tend to grow anisotropically in its preferred crystallographic orientation (Fig. 8a). However, restrictions imposed by isotropic diffusion growth will impose an increased isotropy on the system. Consequently, the dendritic shape of the austenite will be altered and the -liquid interface will exhibit only small protuberances instead of clear secondary arms (Fig. 8c) [14]. This interpretation is consis-

tent with the results of phase-led modeling [29] shown in Fig. 8b and d. Alternatively, to understand the interaction between austenite dendrites and graphite nodules in the early stages of solidication, the concepts developed for particle engulfment and pushing may be used. For a description of this approach Refs. [14] and [28] are suggested. Oldelds name surfaces again when attempting to understand the inuence of a third element on the stable (Tst ) and metastable (Tmet ) temperatures. Indeed, using cooling curve analysis, Oldeld [6] demonstrated that Si increases the Tst Tmet interval, while chromium decreases it. This information was used to correlate microstructure to the beginning and end of the eutectic solidication. It became a truism [30] that if both the beginning and end of solidication occur above the metastable temperature, the solidication microstructure is gray. If both temperatures are under Tmet , the iron is white, while if only one temperature is lower than Tmet the iron is mottled. 3.4. The gray-to-white structural transition (GWT) The rst rationalization of the GWT was based on the inuence of cooling rate on the stable and metastable eutectic temperatures. As shown in Fig. 9, as the cooling rate increases, both temperatures decrease. However, since the slope of Tst is steeper than that of Tmet , the two intersect at a cooling rate which is the critical cooling rate (dT/dt)cr , for the GWT. At cooling rates smaller than (dT/dt)cr the iron solidies gray, while at higher cooling rates it solidies white. Magnin and Kurz [31] further developed this concept by using solidication velocity rather than cooling rate as a variable, and considering the inuence of nucleation undercooling for both the stable and metastable eutectics. Thus, a critical velocity for the white-to-gray transition and one for the gray-to-white transition were dened.

D.M. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333

327

Fig. 8. SEM images of dendrites and SG iron in microshrinkage regions (left) and phase-led calculated images of dendrites (right). (a) Primary austenite dendrite [28], (b) simulated high anisotropy [29], (c) eutectic austenite dendrite and SG aggregate [28] and (d) simulated no anisotropy [29].

LG iron expands about 0.20.5% during eutectic solidication, while no signicant expansion occurs in SG iron because of mass expulsion into the riser. This expulsion occurs because SG iron undergoes mushy solidication while LG iron solidies with a skin (Fig. 10). 3.6. Melt control The progress in the understanding of the correlation between the solidication microstructure and temperature undercooling generated interest in the possibility of using cooling curves (CC) to predict not only the chemical composition but even the microstructure. After initial work by Loper et al. [35], Naro and Wallace [36] showed that eutectic undercooling continuously decreases as the cerium addition to the iron increases, and that this is directly related to the change in microstructure from LG, to SG, to white. Then, it was found that compacted graphite (CG) iron solidies with larger recalescence than either LG or SG iron [37,38]. This proved to be a signicant discovery since it is currently used for process control in at least two patented technologies for the manufacturing of CG iron. In 1972 Rabus and Polten [39] used the rst derivative of the CC, which is the cooling rate, to attempt to precisely identify the points of interest on the CC such as beginning and start of solidication. Other researchers followed [40] and attempted to use the CC and its derivative to predict microstructure details such as 80% nodularity [41] and then the latent heat of fusion [42]. This proved to be an elusive goal, in spite attempts to improve the standard Newtonian analysis [43] or to use Fourier analysis [44]. Today CC analysis is a standard control tool in iron foundries for evaluating the chemical composition as well as graphite

Fig. 9. Critical cooling rate for the GTW transition.

3.5. Dimensional variation during solidication Soon after the discovery of SG iron researchers noted that its dimensional variation during solidication is quite different than that of LG iron. In 1954 Gittus [32] measured the expansion of SG iron over the eutectic interval and showed that it was ve times higher than that of LG iron. Hillert [33] explained this surprising nding by noting that most graphite forms when surrounded by austenite. Graphite expansion occurring during solidication imposes considerable plastic deformation on the austenite. Yet, specic volume calculations suggest that graphite expansion should be the same for FG and SG irons. Some 20 years later, using a different experimental device that included a riser feeding the test casting, Margerie [34] found that

328

D.M. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333

Fig. 10. Schematic illustration of solidication mechanisms of continuously cooled lamellar and spheroidal graphite cast iron [14].

shape, inoculation efciency, shrinkage propensity and others. The ATAS equipment developed by NovaCast has the added feature that it can store information developed in a specic foundry and incorporate it into an expert system. It outputs 20 of the most important thermal parameters of the CC. As both the CC and the dimensional variation are strong indicators of the phase transformation occurring in the solidifying alloy, Stefanescu et al. [45] combined the two methods by adding quartz rods to a standard sand cup for CC, and using a displacement transducer to simultaneously measure temperature and dimensional variation (Fig. 11). The method proved to be very efcient in the characterization of graphite shape and was patented as part of a technology for CG iron production with in-process operative control. A similar approach was promoted later by Yang and Aalhainen [46] that even used the derivative of the dimensional variation curve to predict the amount of carbides.

4. Critical innovations in the development of mathematical models for cast iron In this section we will present a summary of the main analytical and computational models developed for cast iron. 4.1. Analytical modeling of cast iron Two years after the development of the JacksonHunt model for regular eutectics, Tiller [47] attempted to avoid one of the limitations of the JH model, which is that it could only be used for directional solidication. He developed a model for the cooperative growth of a eutectic spherical grain of LG and austenite. The model predicted that the correlation between solidication velocity and lamellar spacing obeys the relationship V1/2 = 4 106 . This theoretical result was conrmed experimentally by Lakeland in 1968. The rst analytical model to describe growth of the eutectic in SG iron was proposed in 1972 by Wetterfall et al. [48]. The model assumed diffusion controlled steady-state growth of graphite through the shell. This model has survived the test of time and is used today in most computational models for microstructure evolution. Under the assumption that the ratio between the radii of and graphite remains constant during solidication, the equation derived for the growth velocity of graphite was simplied by Svensson and Wessen [49] to drGr /dt = 2.87 1011 T/rGr . The irregular nature of the LG- eutectic was not confronted until 1987, when Magnin and Kurz [50] proposed their irregular faceted/non-faceted eutectic model assuming non-isothermal interface. They further assumed that the phase that has a diffuse interface grows faster than the graphite phase that is faceted, and that branching occurs when a depression forms on the faceted phase. To impose a non-isothermal coupling condition over the interface, they ascribed a cubic function. They demonstrated that the smallest spacing of the lamellar eutectic is dictated by the extremum condition, but that a larger spacing will also exist, br , dictated by a branching condition. br can be calculated as the product between a function of the physical constants of the faceted phase and a material constant. This constant must be postulated (guessed) which limits the generality of the model.

Fig. 11. Results of measurement of temperature, cooling rate, and dimensional variation for a CG iron.

D.M. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333

329

Recently, Catalina et al. [51,52] proposed a modied JacksonHunt model for eutectic growth applicable to both regular and irregular eutectics. The model relaxes the assumption of isothermal interface and accounts for the density difference between the liquid and the two solid phases. Four characteristic spacings for which the undercooling exhibits a minimum were identied: , , SL (for the average undercooling of the S/L interface), and iso = ex (spacing at which the interface is isothermal equal to the one derived from the extremum criterion). It is remarkable that iso = ex was derived without invoking the extremum criterion. However, isothermal growth is not possible in all eutectic system. FeC alloys do not grow with an isothermal interface. The minimum spacing is determined by SL , while the average spacing by Gr . Spacing adjustment of irregular eutectics occurs through the branching of the faceted phase.

4.2. Computational modeling of cast ironanalytical heat transport + transformation kinetics The era of computational modeling of cast iron was started by the brilliancy of a scientist whose name has already been quoted several times in this paper. It is that of Oldeld [53], who, in 1966 developed a computer model that could calculate the cooling curves of LG iron (Fig. 12). His seminal paper included many innovations including parabolic laws with experimentally derived constants for nucleation and growth of spherical eutectic grains, correction for grain impingement against one another and against the wall, and a computer model for heat ow across a cylinder similar to FDM. Validation against published experiments was also included. Oldelds model is indisputably the basis of the current advances in computational modeling of microstructural evolution during solidication. Nobody ever remembers number 2 in any human endeavor. Yet, the author of this paper will have to take credit for this position, since in 1973 he was the rst one to continue Oldelds work [54]. Using an analytical model for heat transport and time stepping procedure to generate cooling curves, Stefanescu and Trunescu [55] studied the effects of inoculants on the cooling curves and the nucleation constants. A third paper followed in 1978 when Aizawa [56] used Oldelds model to examine the
Fig. 12. Experimental and calculated cooling curves, quenched iron sample and equations for nucleation and growth proposed by Oldeld [53].

inuence of nucleation and growth rate constants on the width of the mushy zone in LG and SG iron. The next signicant development in the eld belongs to Fredriksson and Svensson [57,58] who combined an analytical model for heat transfer with parabolic growth law for LG and white iron, carbon diffusion through shell for SG iron, and a model for cylindrical shape CG. They were also the rst to introduce the JohnsonMehl approximation for spherical grain impingement. At the same time and using similar procedures, Stefanescu and Kanetkar [59] included in the model primary and eutectic solidication, as well as the eutectoid transformation, calculating for the rst time the room temperature microstructure (Fig. 13). Incremental improvements were contributed by various researchers. Lacaze et al. [60] modied the mass balance equation in the carbon diffusion model for SG iron to include calculation of the off-eutectic austenite. Fras et al. [61] further improved the carbon diffusion model by solving for non-stationary diffu-

Fig. 13. Calculated cooling curves (left) and fraction of phases (right). M is the cylindrical bar modulus. Full lines are for pearlite, dotted lines are for ferrite [59].

330

D.M. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333

sion, including diffusion in liquid, and considering the ternary Fe C Si system. The next challenge of signicant industrial interest was the prediction of the GWT. Fredriksson et al. [62] and Stefanescu and Kanetkar [63] approached it in 1986. By including both the stable and metastable phases in the calculation of the fraction solid, it was possible to output the solid fractions of gray and white eutectics. The basic equation was: fS = 1 exp 4 3 3 NGr rGr + NFe3 C rFe3 C 3

where N is the number of grains and r is their radius. 4.3. Computational modeling of cast ironnumerical transport + transformation kinetics The rst coupled FDM energy transportsolidication kinetics model for SG iron was proposed in 1985 by Su et al. [64]. They used Oldelds nucleation model, carbon diffusion controlled growth through the shell, and performed some validation against experiment. It was not until 1991 that a FDM energy transportsolidication kinetics model for SG iron was extended to room temperature by Chang et al. [65]. They modeled the transformation as a continuous cooling transformation and attempted some validation against experimental work. The rst attempt to use a numerical model to predict the GWT appears to belong to Stefanescu and Kanetkar [66] who in 1987 developed an axisymmetric implicit FDM heat transport model coupled with the description of the solidication kinetics of the stable and metastable eutectics. They validated model predictions against cast pin tests. A few years later, Nastac and Stefanescu [67] produced a complete FDM model for the prediction of the GWT, which was incorporated in ProCast. The model included the nucleation and growth of the stable and metastable phases and accounted for microsegregation. The model demonstrated such phenomena as the inuence of Si segregation on the Tst Tmet interval for gray and white irons, and the inuence of cooling rate and amount of Si on the gray-to-white and white-to-gray transitions (Fig. 14). Mampey [68] included uid ow in the transport calculations, compared lling simulation with experiment, and demonstrated the inuence of mold lling on the nal distribution of nodule count. He also illustrated the shifting of thermal center and the reduction of radial temperature differences when ow was included (Fig. 15). 4.4. Computational modeling of cast ironvisualization of microstructure The transformation of the computer into a dynamic microscope that transformed cast iron into a virtual material was spearheaded by Rappaz and his collaborators with their application of the cellular automaton (CA) technique to microstructure evolution modeling. Not surprisingly, the rst application of the CA technique to cast iron is due to Charbon and Rappaz [69] who used the classic model for diffusion-controlled graphite growth through the austenite shell to describe SG iron solidication.

Fig. 14. The inuence of Si and initial cooling rate on structural transition in a 3.6% C, 0.5% Mn, 0.05% P, 0.025% S cast iron [67].

Two selected computer generated pictures at some intermediate fS and at fS = 1 are presented in Fig. 16. The reader will notice that each nodule is surrounded by an austenite grain. Yet experimental evidence suggests that more than one graphite spheroid is found in the eutectic austenite grains (see for example microshrinkage SEM images in Ref. [28] or color etching microstructures in Refs. [28,70]). Beltran-Sanchez and Stefanescu [71] improved on the previous model by including solidication of primary austenite grains and by initiating graphite growth once graphite nuclei came in contact with the austenite grains. After contact, graphite was allowed to grow through the diffusion-controlled growth mechanism.

Fig. 15. Calculated effect of uid ow on the thermal prole of a cylindrical casting [68].

D.M. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333

331

Fig. 16. Virtual solidication microstructures of SG cast iron.

calculate the strength of LG iron. After systematic validation of the various subroutines, they were implemented in Caterpillars comprehensive simulation toolCAPS. Extensive validation by Caterpillars scientists proved that the model could be used as a reliable tool for quality control and design. Finally, we must mention a model by Leube and Arnberg [76] that claims prediction of tensile strength from fraction of austenite and average of maximum graphite ake length.
Fig. 17. Comparison between experimental and simulated LG iron grain structure in cylindrical rods of various diameters [72].

5. Concluding remarks We believe that this review demonstrates that our knowledge of cast iron solidication has advanced to the point that few areas are still in need of research. Areas of interest remain nucleation, metal-mold interface interactions, and semi-solid processing. Simulation of microstructure and properties has also made gigantic strides. Computer software companies offer complete packages. For example, in a recent paper, Weber et al. [77] stated that Magmasoft offers integrated simulation of the entire process (mold lling, solidication, and cooling) using a micromodeling approach to investigate nal structures and properties of iron casting. The model accounts for inoculation and growth condition of specic alloys. It predicts graphite morphology (lamellar, nodular), carbide formation, and microstructure length scale (eutectic grain size, type, and average size of lamellae or number of nodules). It calculates the eutectoid transformation and thus nal structure. The model predicts properties such as hardness, yield and tensile strength and fracture elongation. To support these contentions validation against industrial castings was offered. So, are we at the end of the road? Not so fast! While models can do a lot they are not yet transportable, meaning that considerable calibration is required for the conditions specic to the particular foundry. This is because nucleation model are still highly empirical, and many physical properties are poorly known. Thus, we believe that the eld has still potential for further development. References
[1] M. Eliade, The Forge and the Crucible, The University of Chicago Press, 1978. [2] J. Am. Foundrymens Assoc. 1 (1896). [3] E. Nechtelberger, H. Puhr, J.B. von Nesselrode, A. Nakayasu, Proceedings of the 49th International Foundry Congress, CIATF, Chicago, 1982, Paper 1.

Leube et al. [72] derived a branching criterion from the MagninKurz model for irregular eutectics to calculate the maximum spacing in FG iron. They calculated the minimum spacing as per JacksonHunt. Their model allows calculation of the average length of lamellae for all grains in one volume element and of the average of the longest graphite lamella. An interesting innovation was the simulation of the eutectic grain structure (Fig. 17) based on JohnsonMehl-tesselation (Monte-Carlo simulation). 4.5. Computational modeling of cast ironmapping of mechanical properties Mapping of microstructure evolution through computational modeling made possible mapping of mechanical properties, in a clear departure of the older approaches in predicting mechanical properties from statistical models relying on composition and cooling rate, or from numerical models using criteria functions. Svensson et al. [73] used a control volume FDM model for heat transfer coupled to transformation kinetics models to predict room microstructure. Then, hardness was calculated as a function of microstructure and experimentally derived coefcients. A complete model for prediction of static mechanical properties of LG and SG irons was proposed by Catalina et al. [74,75]. First a spherical symmetry model for growth of the eutectic grain of LG was developed, assuming carbon diffusioncontrolled growth. Then a carbon diffusion-controlled growth model for ferrite growth and graphite thickening was perfected. Pearlite growth was simulated based on minimum growth rate of the Fe C X component systems. The earlier developed model for SG iron was also used. The hardness, strength, and elongation of SG iron was computed on the basis of the isostrain condition, while a modied Grith model was implemented to

332

D.M. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333 [37] L. B ckerud, K. Nilsson, H. Steen, in: B. Lux, I. Minkoff, F. Mollard a (Eds.), The Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Georgi Publishing Co., St. Saphorin, Switzerland, 1975, p. 625. [38] D.M. Stefanescu, in: H. Fredriksson, M. Hillert (Eds.), The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Elsevier, 1985, p. 151. [39] D. Rabus, S. Polten, Giesserei Rundshau (9) (1972) 18. [40] P. Strizik, Giesserei 61 (1974) 615618. [41] I.G. Chen, D.M. Stefanescu, AFS Trans. 92 (1984) 947. [42] K.G. Upadhya, D.M. Stefanescu, K. Lieu, D.P. Yeger, AFS Trans. 97 (1989) 6166. [43] J.O. Barlow, D.M. Stefanescu, AFS Trans. 105 (1997) 349354. [44] E. Fras, W. Kapturkiewicz, A. Burbielko, H.F. Lopez, AFS Trans. 101 (1993) 505511. [45] D.M. Stefanescu, L. Dinescu, S. Craciun, M. Popescu, Proceedings of the 46th International Foundry Congress, CIATF, Madrid, Spain, October, 1979. [46] Y. Yang, J. Aalhainen, in: G. Lesoult, J. Lacaze (Eds.), Physical metallurgy of Cast Iron V, Scitec Publications, Switzerland, 1997, pp. 433438. [47] W.A. Tiller, in: H.D. Merchant (Ed.), Recent Research on Cast Iron, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1968, p. 129. [48] S.E. Wetterfall, H. Fredriksson, M. Hillert, J. Iron Steel Inst. (1972) 323. [49] I.L. Svensson, M. Wessen, in: B.G. Thomas, C. Beckermann (Eds.), Modeling of Casting, Welding and Advanced Solidication Processes VIII, The Metallurgical Soc., Warrendale, PA, 1998, p. 443. [50] P. Magnin, W. Kurz, Acta Metall. 35 (1987) 1119. [51] A.V. Catalina, S. Sen, P.A. Curreri, in: D.M. Stefanescu, R. Ruxanda, M. Tierean, C. Serban (Eds.), The Science of Casting and Solidication, Editura Lux Libris, Brasov, 2001, p. 44. [52] A.V. Catalina, S. Sen, D.M. Stefanescu, Metall. Mater. Trans. 34A (2003) 383394. [53] W. Oldeld, ASM Trans. 59 (1966) 945. [54] D.M. Stefanescu, Ph.D. Dissertation, Polytechnic Institute of Bucharest, 1973. [55] D.M. Stefanescu, S. Trunescu, Z. Metall. 9 (1974) 610. [56] T. Aizawa, Imono 50 (1978) 33. [57] H. Fredriksson, L. Svensson, in: H. Fredriksson, M. Hillert (Eds.), The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Elsevier, 1985, pp. 273284. [58] H. Fredriksson, L. Svensson, in: D.M. Stefanescu, G.J. Abbaschian, R.J. Bayuzick (Eds.), Solidication Processing of Eutectic Alloys, The Metallurgical Soc., Warrendale, PA, 1988, pp. 153162. [59] D.M. Stefanescu, C. Kanetkar, in: D.J. Srolovitz (Ed.), Computer Simulation of Microstructural Evolution, The Metallurgical Soc., Warrendale, PA, 1985, pp. 171188. [60] J. Lacaze, M. Castro, C. Selig, G. Lesoult, in: M. Rappaz, et al. (Eds.), Modeling of Casting, Welding and Advanced Solidication Processes V, The Metallurgical Soc., Warrendale, PA, 1991, pp. 473478. [61] E. Fras, W. Kapturkiewicz, A.A. Burbielko, in: M. Croos, J. Campbell (Eds.), Modeling of Casting, Welding and Advanced Solidication Processes VII, The Metallurgical Soc., Warrendale, PA, 1995, pp. 679 686. [62] H. Fredriksson, J.T. Thorgrimsson, I.L. Svensson, in: H. Fredriksson (Ed.), State of the Art of Computer Simulation of Casting and Solidication Processes, Les Editions de Physique, Les Ulis, France, 1986, pp. 267275. [63] D.M. Stefanescu, C.S. Kanetkar, in: H. Fredriksson (Ed.), State of the Art of Computer Simulation of Casting and Solidication Processes, Les Editions de Physique, Les Ulis, France, 1986, pp. 255266. [64] K.C. Su, I. Ohnaka, I. Yamauchhi, T. Fukusako, in: H. Fredriksson, M. Hillert (Eds.), The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Elsevier, 1985, pp. 181189. [65] S. Chang, D. Shangguan, D.M. Stefanescu, Metall. Trans. 22A (1991) 915. [66] D.M. Stefanescu, C.S. Kanetkar, AFS Trans. (1987) 139144. [67] L. Nastac, D.M. Stefanescu, AFS Trans. 103 (1995) 329337. [68] F. Mampey, in: G. Lesoult, J. Lacaze (Eds.), Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron V, Scitec Publications, Switzerland, 1997, pp. 7388.

[4] E. Piwowarsky, Hochweriges Gusseisen, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1942. [5] W. Patterson, D. Ammann, Giesserei Technisch-Wissenschaftliche Beihefte 23 (1959) 12471275. [6] W. Oldeld, The Solidication of Hypoeutectic Cast Iron, M.Sc. Thesis, Manchester University, 1961. [7] B. Lux, in: H.D. Merchant (Ed.), Recent Research on Cast Iron, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1968, p. 241. [8] W. Weis, in: B. Lux, I. Minkoff, F. Mollard (Eds.), The Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Georgi Publishing Co., St. Saphorin, Switzerland, 1974, pp. 6979. [9] M.M. Jacobs, T.J. Law, D.A. Melford, M.J. Stowell, Met. Technol. 1 (Part II) (1974) 490. [10] T. Skaland, F. Grong, T. Grong, Metall. Trans. 24A (1993), 2321 and 2347. [11] K. Herfurth, Freiberg Forschungs 105 (1965) 267. [12] B. Lux, I. Minkoff, F. Mollard, E. Thury, in: B. Lux, I. Minkoff, F. Mollard (Eds.), The Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Georgi Publishing Co., St. Saphorin, Switzerland, 1974, pp. 495508. [13] J.P. Sadocha, J.E. Gruzleski, in: B. Lux, I. Minkoff, F. Mollard (Eds.), The Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Georgi Publjishing Co., St. Saphorin, Switzerland, 1974, p. 443. [14] D.M. Stefanescu, Science and Engineering of Casting Solidication, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2002. [15] B. Lux, F. Mollard, I. Minkoff, in: B. Lux, et al. (Eds.), The Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Georgi Publishing Co., St. Saphorin, Switzerland, 1975, p. 371. [16] H. Jones, W. Kurz, Metall. Trans. 11A (1980) 1265. [17] J.D. Sch bel, in: H.D. Merchant (Ed.), Recent Research on Cast Iron, o Gordon and Breach, New York, 1968, p. 303. [18] E. Scheil, L. H tter, Arch. Eisenhuttenwesen 4 (1953) 24. u [19] S.E. Wetterfall, H. Fredriksson, M. Hillert, J. Iron Steel Inst. (1972) 323. [20] S. Karsay, in: H.D. Merchant (Ed.), Recent Research on Cast Iron, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1968, p. 215. [21] K.D. Lakeland, L.M. Hogan, in: H.D. Merchant (Ed.), Recent Research on Cast Iron, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1968, pp. 417 448. [22] D. Argo, J.E. Gruzleski, Mater. Sci. Technol. 10 (2) (1986) 1019. [23] D.K. Bandyopadhyay, D.M. Stefanescu, I. Minkoff, S.K. Biswal, in: G. Ohira, T. Kusakawa, E. Niyama (Eds.), Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron IV, Proceedings of the Materials Research Society, Tokyo, Pittsburgh, PA, 1989, p. 27. [24] H. Nieswaag, A.J. Zuithoff, in: B. Lux, I. Minkoff, F. Mollard (Eds.), The Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Georgi Publishing Co., St. Saphorin, Switzerland, 1975, p. 327. [25] A. Rickert, S. Engler, in: H. Fredriksson, M. Hillert (Eds.), The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Proceedings of the Materials Research Society, Vol. 34, North-Holland, 1985, p. 165. [26] D.M. Stefanescu, in: H. Fredriksson, M. Hillert (Eds.), The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Proceedings of the Materials Research Society, Vol. 34, North-Holland, 1985, p. 151. [27] Y.X. Li, B.C. Liu, C.R. Loper Jr., AFS Trans. 98 (1990) 483488. [28] R. Ruxanda, L. Beltran-Sanchez, J. Massone, D.M. Stefanescu, Proceedings of Cast Iron Division, AFS 105th Casting Congress, American Foundry Soc., Des Plaines, IL, 2001, p. 37. [29] A. Karma, W.-J. Rappel, Phys. Rev. E 57 (4) (1998) 4323. [30] H.D. Merchant, in: H.D. Merchant (Ed.), Recent Research on Cast Iron, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1968, pp. 1100. [31] P. Magnin, W. Kurz, in: H. Fredriksson, M. Hillert (Eds.), The Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron, North-Holland, New York, 1985, pp. 263272. [32] J.H. Gittus, BCIRA J. Res. Develop. 5 (5) (1954) 264277. [33] M. Hillert, in: H.D. Merchant (Ed.), Recent Research on Cast Iron, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1968, p. 101. [34] J.C. Margerie, in: B. Lux, I. Minkoff, F. Mollard (Eds.), The Metallurgy of Cast Iron, Georgi Publishing Co., St. Saphorin, Switzerland, 1975, p. 723. [35] C.R. Loper, R.W. Heine, A. Shah, AFS Trans. 75 (1967) 541. [36] R.L. Naro, J.F. Wallace, AFS Trans. 78 (1970) 229238.

D.M. Stefanescu / Materials Science and Engineering A 413414 (2005) 322333 [69] Ch. Charbon, M. Rappaz, in: G. Lesoult, J. Lacaze (Eds.), Physical metallurgy of Cast Iron V, Scitec Publications, Switzerland, 1997, pp. 453460. [70] G. Rivera, R. Boeri, J. Sikora, Adv. Mater. Res. 45 (1997) 169. [71] L. Beltran-Sanchez, D.M. Stefanescu, Metall. Mater. Trans. 35A (2004) 24712486. [72] B. Leube, L. Arnberg, R. Mai, in: B.G. Thomas, C. Beckerman (Eds.), Modeling of Casting, Welding and Advanced Solidication Processes VIII, The Metallurgical Soc., Warrendale, PA, 1998, p. 463. [73] I.L. Svensson, M. Wessen, A. Gonzalez, in: T.S. Piwonka, V. Voller, L. Katgerman (Eds.), Modeling of Casting, Welding and Advanced Solid-

333

[74]

[75] [76] [77]

ication Processes, The Metallurgical Soc., Warrendale, PA, 1993, pp. 2936. A. Catalina, X. Guo, D.M. Stefanescu, L. Chuzhoy, M.A. Pershing, in: T.S. Piwonka, V. Voller, L. Katgerman (Eds.), Modeling of Casting, Welding and Advanced Solidication Processes, The Metallurgical Soc., Warrendale, PA, 1998, pp. 455462. A. Catalina, X. Guo, D.M. Stefanescu, L. Chuzhoy, M.A. Pershing, AFS Trans. 108 (2000) 247257. B. Leube, L. Arnberg, Int. J. Cast Met. Res. 11 (1999) 507514. R. Weber, J.C. Sturm, P.R. Sahm, in: G. Lesoult, J. Lacaze (Eds.), Physical Metallurgy of Cast Iron V, Scitec Publications, Switzerland, 1997, pp. 105128.