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 fine flake-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

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

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 modification and grain refining 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 solidification 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-

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.

3. Experimental result and discussion

3.1. Typical thermal analysis curve of high-nickel
austenitic ductile iron
Fig. 2 shows a cooling curve, a first-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 solidification 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 first-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

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

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 significant, where:


= Qe /n 2, a variance of point estimation;
Qe =

n


(CEL CEL) 2

i=1

n


(TL T L )2 ,

i=1

a residual sum of squares;

a regression linear formula as following is derived from the

data of Table A.2 (see Appendix A).

n, times for experiment;

t/2 (n 2), Students distribution with n degrees of freedom against (1 ), which is a confidence level.
Thus,

= Qe /n 2 = 3.0106 102 ,

CEL = A + B TL

regarded as the error of carbon equivalent

where

27
i=1 Sxy
B =
27
= 9.6575 103
S
xx
i=1

So,
B

Fig. 3. Cooling curves of different carbon equivalent.

Sxy = (TLi T L )(CELi CEL)

2
Sxx = (TL T L )

A = CEL B T L = 15.7826
Thus, the first 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.

Sxx = 25.656 > t/2 (n 2) = 2.787

It is clear that the linear regression is considerable confidence.

The t/2 (n 2) can be resulted from the table of probability
points of t distribution [10] and the confidence 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:
(TL0 ) < CEL0 < CEL
+ (TL0 )} = 1 ;
P{CEL
where

(TL0 ) = t/2 (n 2) 1 +

2
1 (TL0 T L )
;
+
n
Sxx

= A + B TL0 .
CEL
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,

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

CEL0 = A + B TL0 t/2 (n 2)


2
1 (TL0 T L )
1+ +
,
n
Sxx

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

Fig. 5. Predicting range of carbon equivalent.

If the value of TL0 is very close to T L0 and n is bigger

enough, then

2
1 (TL0 T L )
1+ +
1;
n
Sxx
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

313

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

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 )

Appendix A

No. of
furnace

See Tables A.1 and A.2.

Table A.1
Composition, carbon equivalent and liquidus temperature
No. of furnace

C (%)

Si (%)

Ni (%)

CEL

TL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table A.2
Data of regression
No. of
furnace

CEL

TL

Syy

1
2
3
4

3.89441
4.07697
4.0033
3.74772

1234
1211
1218
1245

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

CEL

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

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

Average

4.040217

Summation 113.1261

TL

Syy

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

1215.889

0.022936

34044.89

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

236.9137 2.28799

0.619259 6396.67

61.7759

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.