Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Si and Ni As Alloying Elements To Vary Carbon Equivalent of Austenitic Ductile Cast Iron - Microstructure and Mechanical Properties-2
Si and Ni As Alloying Elements To Vary Carbon Equivalent of Austenitic Ductile Cast Iron - Microstructure and Mechanical Properties-2
Si and Ni As Alloying Elements To Vary Carbon Equivalent of Austenitic Ductile Cast Iron - Microstructure and Mechanical Properties-2
u
for heats of group A is higher than its value for heats of groups
B and C. This is believed to stem from the higher C-content in
the former. The higher
u
of heats of group B compared to that
of group C refers to the higher Si-content in the former. Again,
the results of the two heats C1 and C2, although shown on the dia-
gram, however, are not comparable with other points since they
revealed pearlite and martensite in their matrices (not austenitic
ductile iron). Additionally, these two specic heats, C1 and C2, had
low Ni-content (less than 13.5%Ni) (cf. Table 2). The decrease in
u
is related to the amount of iron carbide (hard phase) and austenite
(soft phase) in the matrices. The
u
values obtained in the present
study agree with those reported in the literature in the common
range of CE% [15]. However, the present research covered a wider
range of CE% than that reported in the literature.
88 N. Fatahalla et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 504 (2009) 8189
Fig. 7. Effect of variation of %CE ranging from 3.70 to 4.80 on the microstructure of austenitic ductile cast iron etched with 0.5 nital. Group C with different Ni% ranging from
4.99 to 34.70.
3.3.3. 0.2% Proof stress (
0.2
)
Fig. 10 shows the variation of
0.2
with the change in CE% of
austenitic ductile cast iron of all groups investigated. The graph
shows slight decrease in
0.2
for groups A and C and slight
increase in
0.2
for group B. It is believed that the increase in
Si-content of group B resulted in corresponding increase in
0.2
.
Fig. 10 also shows that while the trend of
0.2
for groups A and C
is similar
,
but the values of
0.2
of group C are higher than those
for the former. This result may stem from the higher Ni-content of
C group. This higher
0.2
may also refer to the secondary graphite
particles generated (cf. Fig. 4(ah)). It is suggested to clarify this
phenomenon through future research. Emphases of the present
results are given by the literature [15] for the common range of
CE%.
Fig. 8. Variation of hardness HVwith %CE of austenitic ductile cast iron of all groups
(A, B and C). *This graph implies two alloys of pearliticmartensitic DI of group C.
N. Fatahalla et al. / Materials Science and Engineering A 504 (2009) 8189 89
Fig. 9. Variation of ultimate tensile strength with %CE of austenitic ductile cast iron
of all groups (A, B and C). *This graph implies two alloys of pearliticmartensitic DI
of group C.
Fig. 10. Variation of 0.2 proof stress with %CE of austenitic ductile cast iron of all
groups (A, B and C). *This graph implies two alloys of pearliticmartensitic DI of
group C.
Fig. 11. Variation of elongation%with %CE of austenitic ductile cast iron of all groups
(A, B and C). *This graph implies two alloys of pearliticmartensitic DI of group C.
3.3.4. Elongation%
Fig. 11 delineates the effect of CE% on elongation of austenitic
ductile cast iron for all heats produced in the present study. The
elongation of all the heats of groups A and B has the trend of
slight increase withincreasing CE%. Elongationof the heats of group
B is generally higher than that of group A; this maybe due to
higher Si-content which prevents the formation of any carbides
and increases the amount of soft phase (austenite). The increase in
Ni-content in the third group C resulted in a slight decrease in
ductility as can be seen in Fig. 11.
4. Conclusions
The goals, of the present investigation, have been successfully
achieved implying:
(1) Successful production of austenitic ductile cast iron cover-
ing a wide range of carbon equivalent (3.515.04%). This was
achieved using; carbon, silicon or nickel as alloying elements.
The present results are generally in consistence with those
reported in the literature in the common CE% range. However,
thepresent researchlledthegaps that doexist intheliterature.
(2) Successful casting procedure produced austenitic ductile iron
for a heat with only 13.5mass%Ni. Therefore, a promising
cheaper production cost will be available less than that
presently used (more than 18mass%Ni).
(3) The microstructure of the produced austenitic ductile cast iron
consisted of graphite nodules embedded in austenitic matrix.
The nodule characteristics were affected by the change of CE%.
(4) Slight decrease in hardness, tensile strength, and 0.2% proof
stress with increasing CE% was observed. On the other hand,
a slight increase in ductility was observed with increasing the
CE%.
References
[1] American Foundrymens Society, Ductile Iron Handbook, Inc. Des Plaines, Illi-
nois, (1993).
[2] Metals Handbook on Properties and Selection: Iron and Steel, American Society
for Metals, Metals Park, Ohio USA, vol. 1, 2005.
[3] Metals Handbook on Metallography and Microstructure, American Society for
Metals, Metals Park, Ohio USA, vol. 9, 2004.
[4] H.T. Angus, Cast Iron: Physical and Engineering Properties, 2nd ed., British Cast
Iron Research Association, London, 1978.
[5] N. Fatahalla, H. Hakim, A. AboElEzz, M. Mohamed, Zeitschrift fr Metallkunde
89 (1998) 507513.
[6] H. Bayati, R. Elliott, Materials Science and Technology 11 (1995) 284293.
[7] S. Karsay, Ductile Iron: Production Practices, 2nd printing, American Foundry-
mens Society for Metals, 1979.
[8] D.W. Zeng, C.S. Xie, K.C. Yung, Materials Science and Engineering A333 (2002)
223231.
[9] H. Qin, Y. Zhang, Y. Yougshen, Materials Science and Engineering A393 (2005)
310314.
[10] I. Karaman, H. Sehitoglu, H.J. Maier, Y.I. Chumlyakov, Acta Materialia 49 (2001)
471476.
[11] Y.A. Alzan, A.H.I. Mourad, M. AbouZour, O.A. Abuzeid, Engineering Failure
Analysis 14 (2007) 12941300.
[12] Dsseldorf, Austenitic Cast Ironfor HeavyDutyApplications Technical Report,
Press Release, July 23, 2003.
[13] F. Mampaey, AFS Transactions 02024 (2002) 120.
[14] E. Olivera, D. Rajnovic, S. Zec, L. Sidjanin, M.T. Jovanovic, Materials Characteri-
zation 57 (2006) 211217.
[15] U. Seker, H. Hasirci, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 173 (2006)
260268.
[16] S.K. Putatunda, S. Kesani, R. Tackett, G. Lawes, Materials ScienceandEngineering
A435 (2006) 112122.
[17] Y. Sahin, M. Erdogan, V. Kilicli, Materials Science and Engineering A444 (2007)
3138.
[18] B. Stokes, N. Gao, A.S. Reed, Materials ScienceandEngineeringA445446(2007)
374385.
[19] A. Refaey, N. Fatahalla, Journal of Materials Science 38 (2003) 351362.
[20] K. Aslantas, S. Tasgetiren, Y. Yalcin, Engineering Failure Analysis 11 (2004)
935941.
[21] K. Kocatepe, M. Cerah, M. Erdogan, Materials and Design 28 (2005) 172181.
[22] G. Tokas, M. Tayanc, A. Tokas, Materials Characterization 57 (2006) 290299.
[23] A.N. Damir, A. ElKhatib, G. Nassef, International Journal of Fatigue 29 (2006)
499507.
[24] K. Kocatepe, M. Cerah, M. Erdogan, Journal of Materials Processing Technology
28 (2007) 172181.
[25] U. Seker, I. Ciftci, H. Hasirci, Materials and Design 24 (2003) 4751.
[26] A. AbdAlAal, K.M. Ibrahim, Z. AbdElHamid, Wear 260 (2006) 10701075.
[27] N. Fatahalla, H.A. Hakim, A. AboElezz, M. Mohamed, Journal of Materials Science
31 (1996) 49334937.
[28] R.C. Dommarco, M.E. Sousa, J.A. Sikora, Wear 257 (2004) 11851192.
[29] N. Fatahalla, T. Gomaa, S. Bahi, M. Negm, Zeitschrift fr Metallkunde 89 (1998)
554561.
[30] A. Nofal, N. Fatahalla, M. Morad, Foundry International, Technical Report,
September, 1998, pp. 3136.
[31] N. Fatahalla, S. Bahi, O. Hussein, Journal of Materials Science 31 (1996)
57655772.