Home

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

Integrated modeling and heat treatment simulation of austempered ductile iron

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text. 2012 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 33 012076 (http://iopscience.iop.org/1757-899X/33/1/012076) View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details: IP Address: 195.246.44.105 This content was downloaded on 22/10/2013 at 08:59

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

MCWASP XIII IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 33 (2012) 012076

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/33/1/012076

Integrated modeling and heat treatment simulation of austempered ductile iron

E. Hepp, V. Hurevich, W. Sch afer
MAGMA GmbH, Kackertstr. 11, 52072 Aachen, Germany E-mail: v.hurevich@magmasoft.de Abstract. The integrated modeling and simulation of the casting and heat treatment processes for producing austempered ductile iron (ADI) castings is presented. The focus is on describing dierent models to simulate the austenitization, quenching and austempering steps during ADI heat treatment. The starting point for the heat treatment simulation is the simulated microstructure after solidication and cooling. The austenitization model considers the transformation of the initial ferrite-pearlite matrix into austenite as well as the dissolution of graphite in austenite to attain a uniform carbon distribution. The quenching model is based on measured CCT diagrams. Measurements have been carried out to obtain these diagrams for dierent alloys with varying Cu, Ni and Mo contents. The austempering model includes nucleation and growth kinetics of the ADI matrix. The model of ADI nucleation is based on experimental measurements made for varied Cu, Ni, Mo contents and austempering temperatures. The ADI kinetic model uses a diusion controlled approach to model the growth. The models have been integrated in a tool for casting process simulation. Results are shown for the optimization of the heat treatment process of a planetary carrier casting.

1. Introduction ADI materials are of special interest in automotive and mechanical engineering because they oer an advantageous combination of mechanical properties. The tensile strengths of these materials typically ranges from 800 to 1600 N/mm2 at elongations of up to 10%. They also oer excellent fatigue strength and toughness. This combination of properties makes ADI materials comparable to heat-treated steels, but their density is 10% lower than for steel, making them suitable for light-weight applications. On the other hand, the mechanical properties react very sensitively to variations in heat treatment parameters, making an ADI castings quality extremely process sensitive. The denition of reliable time frames for the processing steps becomes a challenging task for the complicated geometries of the heat-treated parts. What is more, the processing times largely depend on the charge size, its conguration and even on the orientation of the heattreated parts in the furnace or the quench bath. This imposes limitations on the application of ADI materials. Consequently, numerical simulation can provide tools to master the complexity of the heat treatment process and thus enhance its predictability. Naturally, this will also contribute to the further propagation and versatile use of ADI materials in practice. The aim of the work described here is the development of an integrated heat treatment process model that covers all processing stages of ADI castings and to establish a simulation tool for the complete process chain. The heat treatment process consists of three steps: austenitization, quenching and austempering. Existing approaches for each individual step were analyzed
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
1

MCWASP XIII IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 33 (2012) 012076

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/33/1/012076

and those deemed most suitable were selected. The principal criteria used for the selection were robustness, availability of input data and ease of integration. These criteria are often contradictory to simulation accuracy. Hence, the verication of the models is also an important aspect. The three following sections deal with austenitization, quenching and austempering, respectively. They contain a short review of previous work, a description of the numerical approach and its verication. The integrated simulation of a planetary carrier has been carried out, with the simulation results presented in the fth section. All numerical investigations and model verications were performed for a reference alloy with the composition given in Table 1. All stable and metastable phase diagrams and derived parameters like ferrite and pearlite temperatures and equilibrium carbon concentrations in dierent phases were obtained using calculations made with Thermocalc (TM) (1). Table 1. Chemical composition of the reference alloy. Values are given in wt%. C 3.64 Si 2.61 Mn 0.25 Ni 0.5 Cu 0.9

2. Austenitization Austenitization is the rst heat treatment step. Due to heating of the cast part to temperatures between 850 C 950 C, the initial ferrite-pearlite phase transforms to austenite. After that, the carbon contained in the graphite particles dissolves into the newly formed austenite matrix. The temperature and duration used for austenitization are the important process control parameters in this step. Their determination depends on the chemical and ferrite-pearlite composition of the casting. The austenitization temperature denes the maximum amount of carbon that can potentially be dissolved in the austenite matrix. This is signicant as this carbon stabilizes the austenite at room temperature and determines its fraction in the ADI microstructure. The duration of the process must be dened such that a diusion-controlled homogenization of the carbon distribution in the austenite matrix is ensured. If the duration is too long, on the other hand, this may result in grain coarsening in the austenite and in a decrease in productivity and unnecessary energy consumption. A determination of the minimum possible austenitization time to achieve a complete distribution of carbon is the important result of the austenitization simulation. In the framework of the present work, the transformation kinetics as well as carbon homogenization are considered to be determined by carbon diusion. This diusion-controlled approach represents the state-of-the-art in austenitization simulation and can be found in (24). The models for the transformation kinetics and carbon homogenization dier only by the initial and boundary conditions. The assumptions are the same for both of the models as described below: Local thermodynamic equilibrium is assumed at the phase boundaries. A so-called para-equilibrium (PE) approach is used. This means that an Fe-C section of the multicomponent phase diagram is considered, keeping all other elemental concentrations constant. The diusion of Si, Mo, Ni, Mn and Cu is neglected because of their low mobility (5). The application of the PE approach to the ferrite-to-austenite transformation is justied by (6), where an investigation of ternary Fe-C-X systems using local equilibrium with (LEP) and without partitioning (LENP) has been carried out.

MCWASP XIII IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 33 (2012) 012076

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/33/1/012076

Microsegregation is not taken into account, although the consideration of the inuence of microsegregation could be considered similar to (7). 2.1. Problem formulation In the references (2; 3) some simplied analytical approaches to modeling the ferrite-to-austenite transformation and subsequent carbon dissolution are presented. They are restricted to the ferrite-austenite transformation and do not consider pearlite. This leads to an overestimation of the transformation time, which is discussed in more detail below. The austenitization begins with a pearlite-austenite transformation once the metastable temperature is reached. Because of the small characteristic diusion length in pearlite, this transformation is considered to be controlled solely by equilibrium considerations and the release of latent heat.
a) b)

graphite (gr)

()

()

(pearlite)

c) T

d)

T t

gr gr gr
/ gr C a

C
C1 a r
C f r

gr C / a

Da

Da

C2 a r
C f r

T fer

C / a

Ca r

C / f

Df

Df

/ / C C a f

r gr

r1

r2

r max

Figure 1. Diusion-controlled ferrite-austenite transformation: a) micrograph of the initial (as-cast) microstructure; b) schematic diagram of a eutectic cell considered as the calculation domain; c) schematic showing an Fe-C section through the multicomponent phase diagram; d) schematic of the corresponding carbon concentration proles with boundary conditions. During subsequent heating, the ferrite-austenite transformation starts. The initial as-cast microstructure is presented in Figure 1a. The graphite spheres are surrounded by ferrite shells and are embedded in a newly transformed austenite matrix. The graphite sphere together with its diusional surrounding area, also called a eutectic cell, form the calculation domain (see Figure 1b). Once the temperature exceeds this equilibrium temperature at the graphite-ferrite interface (see Figure 1c) an austenite layer starts to form around the graphite, denoted as (). This austenite is surrounded by the ferrite shell and the austenite, transformed from pearlite (pearlite), is found on the outside of the cell. Figure 1d shows a schematic of the carbon
3

MCWASP XIII IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 33 (2012) 012076

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/33/1/012076

concentration prole over the calculation domain. There are two diusional ows into the area. The abundance of carbon in the graphite means the diusion through the () austenite is continuously strong. The diusion through the (pearlite) plays an important role at the beginning of the transformation and diminishes with time due to consumption of the carbon which is stored in (pearlite). The diusion problem for the calculation domain is formulated as follows: Ca1 = Da [T (t)] t Cf = Df [T (t)] t Ca2 = Da [T (t)] t 2 Ca1 2 Ca1 , + r r r2 2 Cf 2 Cf , + r r r2 2 Ca2 2 Ca2 , + r r r2 r [rgr , r1 ] r [r1 , r2 ] r [r1 , rmax ] (1)

where Ca1 , Cf and Ca2 are the carbon concentrations in (), and (pearlite), and Da and Df are the carbon diusion coecients in austenite and in ferrite, respectively. The system of equations (1) contains three coupled boundary problems, hence six boundary conditions as well as three initial conditions are required. The boundary and initial conditions used are listed in Table 2. Because of the assumed local thermodynamic equilibrium, all Dirichlet boundary conditions and Cf can be taken from the phase diagram (see Figure 1c). Cpearlite and rmax are obtained from a previous casting process and solidication simulation performed using a commercial casting process simulation software (10). Table 2. Initial and boundary conditions for modeling diusion during austenitization. zone denotation () (pearlite) variable Ca1 Cf Ca2 initial condition non existent at t = 0 0 Cf Cpearlite boundary condition Dirichlet Ca / Dirichlet Ca / Dirichlet Cf Dirichlet Cf
/ / Ca /gr

coordinate rgr r1 r1 r2 r2 rmax

Dirichlet Neumann Ca2 /r = 0

The equation system (1) contains two unknown mobile fronts r1 and r2 . In order to make the problem well-posed, the system (1) must be supplemented by two additional mass balance equations: Cf r1 Ca1 / / Cf = Df (2) Ca Da , r = r1 t r r Cf r2 Ca2 / / Cf = Da Ca Df , r = r2 . t r r The system (1) and (2) is solved numerically using the nite dierence method. The two fronts r1 and r2 move towards each other, and the transformation is completed as soon as the fronts meet. For the subsequent carbon homogenization, there are no moving fronts. As a result, the problem can be described by a single diusion equation with a Dirichlet boundary condition /gr Ca applied on rgr and a Neumann boundary condition applied on rmax .
4

MCWASP XIII IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 33 (2012) 012076

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/33/1/012076

2.2. Results and verication

a)
750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Time [min]

carbon concentration, wt%

b)

Hardness [HV]

c)

t = 0.1 s t = 20 s t = 60 s

t = 60 s

Figure 2. Ferrite-to-austenite transformation: a) measured micro-hardness as function of austenitization time for the reference alloy; b) simulated carbon concentration distribution over a eutectic cell as a function of austenitization time; c)simulated carbon concentration distribution over a eutectic cell for times of 0.1, 20 and 60 seconds. In order to verify the austenitization model, measurements have been carried out by heating samples for dierent times, quickly quenching them and measuring the micro-hardness (9). These measurements are plotted in Figure 2a for the reference alloy used in this study. The sharp increase in hardness after 3 minutes indicates the ferrite-austenite phase transformation. This transformation takes about 1.5 2 minutes. A numerical simulation has been performed for the same alloy and heating conditions. The simulated carbon concentration prole as a function of dimensionless rmax over time is mapped in Figure 2b. Figure 2c shows the corresponding concentration proles for the three times indicated on the left axis of Figure 2b. The jumps in carbon concentration correspond to the mobile fronts r1 and r2 . The calculated transformation time (about 100s) corresponds well with the measured one. Similar hardness measurements and related simulations have been carried out for another 15 alloys with varying Cu, Ni and Mo contents. The resulting simulated and measured transformation times have also shown a good correlation. 3. Quenching Quenching represents the next step of ADI heat treatment. The aim of quenching is to obtain a strongly undercooled and carbon-saturated austenite, which is required for the following austempering transformation. The cooling must be quick enough to avoid undesirable eutectoid transformations. For this stage, the simulation primarily involves solving the heat conduction
5

e, s tim

t = 20 s t = 0.1 s

rmax, a.u.

rmax, a.u.

MCWASP XIII IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 33 (2012) 012076

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/33/1/012076

equation with appropriate boundary conditions. A possible eutectoid transformation is taken into account using an approach described in (8). A CCT diagram provides the important input data for the simulation of this transformation, specifying the areas in which the precipitation of ferrite and pearlite is still possible. The simulations performed in the present study are based on CCT diagrams measured by the Institut f ur Gieereitechnik (IfG) within the framework of the LEA project (9). 4. Austempering Austempering is the last heat treatment step. During austempering, needle-shaped ADI ferrite is formed. At the same time, the remaining austenite is saturated with carbon rejected from ferrite up to around 2wt%. This carbon makes the austenite stable at room temperature. The critical parameters are the holding temperature and the austempering time. The temperature determines the maximum amount of carbon that can possibly dissolve in austenite and, consequently, the stability of the austenite at room temperature. A temperature that is too high leads to a poor carburization of the austenite. On the other hand, a temperature that is too low causes the formation of martensite. Usually, the holding temperature is in the range of 280 C 400 C. The austempering time must be long enough to ensure the completion of the ADI transformation. On the other hand, an austempering time that is too long promotes the precipitation of carbides. For this process step, the aim of the simulation is to dene the optimum austempering time.

a)
l dif
lf

b)

c)
C
/ C a

2l dif

d)

T T aust gr gr gr T t

j f =D f

C f r

j a = Da

Ca l

Cf

lf

l dif

Cf Cf

Ca

Ca

Figure 3. Approach to modeling Austempering: a) schematic diagram of the calculation domain; b) micrograph of the ADI microstructure; c) schematic of the corresponding carbon concentration proles with boundary conditions; d) schematic showing an Fe-C section through the multicomponent phase diagram.

MCWASP XIII IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 33 (2012) 012076

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/33/1/012076

The austempering and austenitization models are similar: both models are based on the PE approach and use the same assumptions. The austempering model diers from the austenitization model in the geometry of the calculation domain as well as in the boundary conditions used. The calculation domain for the austempering model is shown in Figure 3a. The corresponding carbon concentration prole is indicated schematically in Figure 3c. The boundary conditions are taken from an isopleth phase diagram as shown in Figure 3d. 4.1. Ferrite nucleation

Figure 4. Nucleation of ADI ferrite: a) measured fraction ADI ferrite showing how ldif can be adjusted to obtain good agreement; b) ldif as a function of temperature for the reference alloy. The nucleation of acicular ferrite determines the characteristic diusion length and signicantly inuences the following transformation kinetics. Within the scope of the available models for ADI transformation kinetics, the ferrite needles, or lamellae in 3D, are assumed to be oriented parallel to each other (see Figure 3a). In this case, half of the lamellar spacing is used as the characteristic diusion length ldif . As can be seen in Figure 3b, there is no pattern in lamellae distribution, requiring a determination of an equivalent diusion length. The scattering in ADI microstructures makes this dicult to determine through metallographic evaluation. In contrast, the current phase composition of ADI, or the transformation kinetics, could be securely measured. In the present work, the equivalent diusion length is determined based on experimental measurements with the help of inverse analysis. The required measurements for 16 alloys have been carried out by IfG (9). The Cu, Ni and Mo contents as well as the holding temperature have been varied. The procedure for determining the equivalent diusion length is illustrated in 4a, where measured and simulated fraction ADI ferrite results are shown. The model for the transformation kinetics is described in the next subsection. The equivalent diusion length and the latency time are adjusted to obtain satisfactory agreement with the measurements. The measured transformation kinetics show a pocket at the beginning of the transformation. This pocket could be explained by continuous changes in the equivalent diusion length during ferrite nucleation. The simulation uses a xed diusion length, and will not be able to reproduce the pocket. Nevertheless there is a good agreement between simulated and measured kinetics in general. Figure 4b shows the diusion length of the reference alloy as a function of the temperature. The diusion lengths for 320 C and 380 C dier by more than a factor of 2. Obviously, the temperature plays a decisive role in ferrite nucleation.

MCWASP XIII IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 33 (2012) 012076

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/33/1/012076

4.2. Transformation kinetics

Figure 5. Transformation kinetics during austempering: a) ADI ferrite fraction as a function of time obtained by (9); b) ADI ferrite fraction as a function of time obtained by PE approach; c) comparison of predicted carbon concentration over time using the PE approach and measured by (11); d) predicted fraction of ADI ferrite as a function of Ni and Cu content using the PE approach. In order to verify the model of the transformation kinetics, a comparison with a considerably more sophisticated reference model was drawn. The reference model was developed by the Giesserei-Institut at the RWTH Aachen (9) and considers the cross-diusion of all components in the system. The transformation kinetics obtained by the PE model and the reference model are compared in Figure 5a and 5b, respectively. The simulations were carried out for 3 dierent temperatures of 320 C, 350 C and 380 C. The corresponding diusion length is taken from Figure 4b. The results for 380 C and 350 C show a good correlation with the reference model. But, for 320 C the PE approach predicts a shorter ausferritization time. Another verication is made by comparing the simulated carbon concentration prole with the average carbon concentration obtained using a neutron diraction method (11). The experiment and simulation have been carried out for a temperature of 400 C and the chemical composition given in (11). The measured and simulated concentrations are plotted in Figure 5c, where a good agreement can be observed. Figure 5d shows the predicted ferrite fraction in the ADI matrix as a function of Cu and Ni content. The fraction of ferrite increases with increasing Ni and Cu content, which agrees with the experimental data provided by (12). Summarizing the above, it can be said that the PE approach provides a sucient accuracy. This fact, combined with its fast performance, makes the PE approach ideal for the simulation of ausferritization kinetics for real castings.

MCWASP XIII IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 33 (2012) 012076

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/33/1/012076

Figure 6. Simulation results for the planetary carrier casting: a) predicted nodule-count from the casting simulation; b) predicted minimum required austenitization time; c) predicted fraction of ferrite after quenching; d) predicted fraction of pearlite after quenching; e) predicted minimum required ausferritization time; f) predicted fraction ferrite in ADI. 5. Application example Within the framework of the LEA project (9), an approximately 3400kg planetary carrier from the foundry Eickho in Germany was used as a demonstrator part. The heat treatment process consisted of austenitization for 6 hours at 890 C, followed by quenching and austempering for 3 hours at 360 C. For the alloy used, the ferrite and pearlite temperatures were 762 C and 734 C respectively (1). Figure 6a shows the nodule count distribution taken from the solidication and cooling simulation. It serves as the initial situation for the following austenitization and quenching predictions. The minimum time required to locally achieve a complete austenitization is shown in Figure 6b. The austenitization time correlates well with the nodule count because
9

MCWASP XIII IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 33 (2012) 012076

IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1757-899X/33/1/012076

it is mainly controlled by carbon diusion, and consequently by the diusion length. The most critical area for austenitization is in the center of the casting, which has the lowest nuclei density, and takes about 3 hours. The simulation reveals a potential margin to reduce the austenitization time by nearly one-half. Figures 6c and 6d show the predicted fractions of ferrite and pearlite respectively, which are formed during quenching. The simulation indicates some ferrite and pearlite in the thicker wall sections, indicating that there is room for improving the quenching process. The predicted fraction of ADI ferrite is shown in Figure 6e. The lower ADI-ferrite content in the thicker wall sections can be explained through the lower amount of austenite due to the eutectoid transformation. Figure 6f shows the minimum required time for local austempering. Based on the simulation results, the austempering time could also be reduced down to around 1.5 hours. 6. Conclusions A simulation tool for the integrated modeling of casting and heat treatment processing of ADI has been developed. The used models were validated based on experimental investigations and applied to an example casting. The results show that the modeling approach yields simulation models that can be eectively and accurately applied to optimize the production of ADI castings in practice. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) as well as the Forschungszentrum J ulich (PTJ) for the nancial support. References [1] Thermocalc Version 6 User Handbook 2006 [2] Zimba J, Henwood D, Navara E and Simbi D J 1999 Mat. Sci. and Technol. 15 1024 [3] Batra U, Ray S and Prabhakar S R 2005 J of Mat. Eng. and Performance 14(5) 574 [4] Thomson R C, James J S and Putman D C 2005 Mat. Sci. and Technol. 16 1412 [5] Fridberg J, Torndahl L E and Hillert M et al. 1969 Jernkontorets annaler 153(6) 263 [6] Inden G and Hutchison C R 2003 Austenite Formation and Decomposition, ISS and TMS 65 [7] Lekakh S N and Richards V L 2010 AFS Proceedings 10-083 263 [8] Wess en M and Svensson I L 1994 Metal. and Material trans. 27(A) 1996 [9] Sch afer W et al. LEA - Leichtbau mit gegossenen ADI Bauteilen, Abschlubericht, BMBF Projekt, FKZ 03X3013, 2011 [10] MAGMA5 Version 5.1 User Handbook 2011 [11] Schaaf P, Cusenza S, Bamberger M, Amran Y, Weiss K, Meier L, Hofmann M 2009 Int. Found. Res. 61 14 [12] Mi Y 1995 Scripta Met. Mat. 32 1313

10