kth royal institute

of technology

Licentiate Thesis in Materials Science and Engineering

Cavitation Erosion Mechanisms

in Cast Irons
MÁRCIO FREITAS DE ABREU

Stockholm, Sweden 2021

Cavitation Erosion Mechanisms
in Cast Irons
MÁRCIO FREITAS DE ABREU

Academic Dissertation which, with due permission of the KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
is submitted for public defence for the Degree of Licentiate of Materials Science and Engineering
on Thursday the 4h November 2021, at 9:00 a.m. in N113 Calphad, Brinellvägen 23, Stockholm,
and by Zoom.

Licentiate Thesis in Materials Science and Engineering

KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden 2021
© Márcio Freitas de Abreu
© Marcio Abreu, Jill Sundberg, Jessica Elfsberg, Stefan Jonsson, Paper 1
© Marcio Abreu, Jessica Elfsberg, Stefan Jonsson, Paper 2

ISBN: 978-91-8040-030-5
TRITA-ITM-AVL 2021:45

Printed by: Universitetsservice US-AB, Sweden 2021

 i

List of appended papers

This thesis is based on the following papers:

Paper I

Morphology and mechanisms of cavitation damage on lamellar gray iron

surfaces
Marcio Abreu, Jill Sundberg, Jessica Elfsberg, Stefan Jonsson
Wear 456-457, 2020

Paper II

Cavitation erosion behavior of austempered ductile irons of increasing

hardness
Marcio Abreu, Jessica Elfsberg, Stefan Jonsson
Wear 484-485, 2021

Author’s contribution to appended papers

Paper I

Participated in conceiving and designing the analysis, collected and organized the
data and the images, contributed data and analysis tools, performed the analysis,
wrote the paper.

Paper II

Participated in conceiving and designing the analysis, collected and organized the
data and the images, contributed data and analysis tools, performed the analysis,
wrote the paper.
ii

Abstract

The research presented in this thesis investigated the mechanisms by

which cavitation erosion damage develops in lamellar graphite iron (LGI) and
austempered ductile irons (ADIs). This has been achieved by image sequences
of surface erosion on test samples in tandem with weight change measurements.
Cavitation erosion is caused by the appearance and collapse of bubbles in a
liquid which undergoes rapid pressure oscillations. Imploding bubbles release
heat, shockwaves and high-speed microjets which may strike nearby solid walls
and damage them.
The heavy-duty automotive industry encounters this problem in the engine
cooling system. The combustion chamber requires precise temperature control
for optimal operation and excess heat must be removed by a liquid coolant. In
trucks, the coolant liquid achieves this by circulating around the cylinder liner,
a hollow cylindrical part that encloses the combustion chamber and prevents its
gases from escaping. However, the engine’s intense vibrations create repeated
pressure variations in the coolant, and bubbling ensues. With prolonged
operation, the cylinder liner’s wet outer wall may be severely worn, resulting
in surface roughening, eroded patches and pits. Cavitation is responsible for
great losses due to vehicle downtime and maintenance costs. The present
work aims, therefore, at analyzing the behavior under cavitation exposure of
cast irons that are currently used, or being considered for use, in the cooling
system.
Cylinder liners are currently made of lamellar graphite iron with a matrix
structure consisting of pearlite and a network of steadite, and the analysis for
this material has been presented in Paper 1. Austempered ductile irons are
candidate materials for pumps and other components of the cooling system due
to their very good mechanical properties; three ADIs of increasing hardness,
obtained from different heat treatments of a spheroidal graphite iron, have been
analyzed in Paper 2. Experiments consisted of an ultrasonic vibratory probe to
which material samples were attached and subsequently immersed in a beaker
containing engine coolant. The samples were weighed and photographed in
an SEM after several predetermined time intervals. This produced a detailed
sequence of images which, in combination with mass loss data, can explain
the mechanisms by which cavitation damage initiates and develops in these
materials. The text of this thesis summarizes the findings presented in the
appended articles and compares the behavior of LGI and ADI.
Keywords: Cavitation erosion, surface damage mechanisms, cast irons,
lamellar graphite iron, austempered ductile iron
 iii

Sammanfattning

Forskningen som presenteras i denna avhandling undersöker kavitations-

mekanismerna och uppkomsten av kavitationsskador i gjutjärn med fjällgrafit
(LGI) och i ausferritiskt segjärn (ADI). Detta har gjorts med sekventiell
fotografering av yterosionen på prover samtidigt som viktsförlusten har registre-
rats.
Kavitationserosion uppstår genom bildning och kollaps av bubblor i
en vätska som utsätts för snabba tryckoscillationer. Imploderande bubblor
frigör värme, chockvågor och höghastighets- mikrojetstrålar som kan träffa
närliggande fasta ytor och skada dessa.
Den tunga fordonsindustrin stöter på detta problem bland annat i motor-
ernas kylsystem. Förbränningsrummet fordrar noggrann temperaturkontroll
för optimal förbränning och måste kylas av en kylvätska. I lastbilar cirkuleras
kylmedlet runt cylinderfodret, en ihålig, cylindrisk komponent som omsluter
förbränningskammaren och som hindrar gaser från att lämna systemet. På
grund av motorns intensiva vibrationer bildas återkommande tryckvariationer i
kylvätskan med uppkomst av bubblor. Efter lång tid i drift kan cylinderfodrets
våta utsida bli allvarligt eroderad med ökad ytråhet och med bildande av
erosionmönster och erosionsgropar. Kavitation är förknippad med stora förluster
pga stillestånd och underhållskostnader. Målet med detta arbete är därför att
analysera hur nuvarande, och kandiderande gjutjärn för kylsystem, beter sig
under kavitationsexponering.
Cylinderfoder görs för närvarande av lamellärt gjutjärn med en matrisstruk-
tur av perlit och ett nätverk av steadit, och en analys av detta material
presenteras i artikel 1. Ausferritiska segjärn är kandidatmaterial för pumpar
och andra komponenter i kylsystemet pga sina goda mekaniska egenskaper.
Tre ausferritiska segjärn med sfärisk grafit och successivt ökande hårdhet, från
tre olika värmebehandlingar av samma segjärnsbatch analyseras i artikel 2.
Experimenten bestod av ett ultraljudshorn till vilket prover fästes och därefter
sänktes ner i en bägare med kylvätska. Proven vägdes och fotograferades i
SEM enligt förutbestämda tidsintervall. Detta resulterade i en detaljerad
sekvens med bilder som, i kombination med viktsförlusten, kan förklara
mekanismerna för initiering och utveckling av kavitationsskador i nämnda
material. Avhandlingen summerar fynden som presenteras i de bifogade
artiklarna och jämför beteendena mellan LGI och ADI.
Contents

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Background 3
2.1 Physics of Cavitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Cavitation Damage in Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Review of Research on Cavitation Erosion of Materials . . . . . . . . 7

3 Methods and Materials 9

3.1 Cavitation Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2 Materials - Cast Irons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.1 Lamellar Graphite Iron (LGI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.2 Austempered Ductile Iron (ADI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.3 Chemical Composition and Graphite Distribution . . . . . . . 15

4 Results 17
4.1 Mass loss measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2 Surface evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3 Damage mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3.1 Damage initiation in graphite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3.2 Damage initiation in the matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.3 Damage progression and matrix erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5 Discussion 25

6 Conclusion 29

7 Future Work 31

8 Acknowledgements 33

Bibliography 35

Appended Papers 41

iv
1 Introduction

Heavy-duty truck engines have high power outputs and operate at high temperatures,
thus requiring to be cooled by a circulating liquid. They produce, however, intense
vibrations, which induce high-frequency pressure oscillations in the coolant and
result in cavitation, which is the creation of vapor bubbles (cavities). Some of
the engine components that come into contact with the coolant may thus suffer
cavitation erosion attack, having part of their surfaces damaged [1–12].
Cylinder liners are one such component; they encase the piston and the combustion
chamber, and the cooling liquid flows around them to remove excess heat. Fig. 1.1
shows the side of a cylinder liner that has sustained severe cavitation damage in its
body, as seen in the continuous gray patch in center of the image, and also along
the O-ring groove at its upper part, where deep, separate pits have formed:
Cavitation erosion reduces the service life of engine components and can lead to
failure in extreme cases, while the chipped particles can cause clogging in filters and
nozzles; aside from safety and uptime detriments, these issues increase maintenance
and repair costs [1, 4].
Addressing this requires understanding of the physical principles behind bubble
formation and collapse, how a liquid’s properties affect this phenomenon, and how
materials respond to the impact of a cavitating medium. Extensive research over the
last 100 years has been able to explain the general scientific basis and the conditions
for cavitation, allowing for improved designs of moving wet engine parts [1, 9, 14].
But despite the possibility of ranking broad categories of liquids or materials with
respect to their cavitation protection/resistance and the development of coolants
and surface modifications specifically to mitigate cavitation, a deeper comprehension
of the mechanisms and the role of each variable is still incomplete.

1
2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.1: Cavitation erosion damage on the body and along the O-ring groove on
a truck cylinder liner [13].

1.1 Motivation and Goals

Cavitation erosion afflicts several truck engine parts, lowering their service life and
increasing their maintenance cost. It is, therefore, in the interest of Scania to reduce
the losses it causes, which requires improved component geometry, less aggressive
liquids and more tolerant materials.
In order to develop better materials, the mechanisms by which they undergo
cavitation erosion damage should be understood. This work aims at identifying
the most relevant factors to the cavitation erosion behavior of cast irons, with a
focus on the behavior of distinct graphite structures - lamellar and spheroidal - and
ausferritic matrices of increasing hardness.
2 Background

Cavitation erosion occurs with the implosion of many small bubbles close to a solid
wall. Pressure oscillations in a liquid cause it to vaporize, creating bubbles, which
then quickly implode, releasing shockwaves and microjets and damaging nearby solid
surfaces. This chapter will summarize the physical principles behind cavitation, its
implications to truck engines and the research that has been carried out concerning
these systems.

2.1 Physics of Cavitation

A liquid substance or mixture can turn into vapor either by an increase in temperature
or by a decrease in pressure. Fig. 2.1 shows a generic phase diagram of a substance
in terms of its pressure (P) and temperature (T), and presents regions of stability -
combinations of T and P - for each of its possible physical states, or phases – solid,
liquid and vapor (gas). In either case, the formation of gas happens because the
vapor pressure of the liquid becomes equal to, or greater, than the static pressure
exerted on it.
Boiling happens when a liquid is heated up to a limit temperature; its vapor
pressure also rises until it equals the external pressure. The boiling temperature
is dependent on the chemical composition of the substance or mixture, and on the
pressure that it is subjected to.
A liquid can also become a vapor if the pressure acting on it becomes too low
– lower than the vapor pressure, even with no change in temperature. This may
happen, for example, when a liquid flows from a narrow into a wider section of a
pipe, or when a piston is pulled away from the bulk of a liquid in a container.
The transformation, in both cases, comes with a large increase in volume, since
vapors and gases are around 1000 times less dense than their liquid counterpart,
and results in the formation of bubbles [3, 10, 15]. Boiling is usually done in open
containers or with some space that the newly formed vapor can occupy, so the
bubbles float towards the surface and escape the bulk. But vaporization from
pressure drops happens often in pipes and closed containers with no free space
available, and the bubbles remain in the bulk. If the opposite happens and the

3
4 CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND

Figure 2.1: Phase transformations of a liquid into vapor.

pressure increases, these trapped bubbles then revert to the liquid phase – with a
large and abrupt decrease in volume adequately described as a collapse or implosion,
because the surrounding liquid moves into the volume freed up by the bubble quickly,
causing a microjet accompanied by a shockwave and releasing heat [1, 7, 8, 16].
In practice, a very large number bubbles will be generated and collapsed within
a given body of liquid, constituting a bubble cloud; if the pressure changes happen
with a high frequency, many implosion events take place in a short time, and nearby
solid walls are bombarded with high-speed jets and shockwaves [16]. The damage
caused by this bombardment is termed cavitation erosion (CE), and may turn severe
over long exposures and in aggressive conditions.
Temperature, static pressure, chemical composition, boiling point, viscosity and
surface tension of the liquid affect its bubble dynamics and flow, and are therefore
important to the extent of the erosion caused to an exposed material [17]. As
well, the damaged sustained by such solid is influenced by its surface roughness
and texture and also its mechanical properties, such as hardness, toughness and
microstructure [11, 12, 15, 18, 19]. However, the relevance of each of these variables
can vary widely, and may not even be clear, depending on the mechanical system in
question and its operational parameters.

2.2 Cavitation Damage in Engines

The combustion chambers of heavy-duty truck engines operate at high temperatures
in order to achieve a high output of mechanical work, but they require efficient
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND 5

and reliable cooling that cannot be achieved by using air. The medium of choice
is instead a liquid coolant which circulates around the cylinder liners and through
channels within the engine block [1, 2, 17]. It not only absorbs excess heat generated
in the combustion chamber, but also works as an antifreeze (for vehicles operating
in cold climates) and provides corrosion protection to the surfaces in contact with
it. It is essentially an aqueous solution of ethylene glycol, in high concentrations,
and corrosion inhibitors, in smaller amounts [20].
The levels of power generated by the engine also cause strong vibrations in
its components. In contact with a liquid, vibrating surfaces impart to it pressure
oscillations which may cause bubbling and cavitation erosion in some spots. At high
frequencies, when the relative motion of the wall is in the direction away from the
bulk, the liquid does not have time to respond and follow the wall and instead suffers
a local pressure drop which may be enough to vaporize it and create bubbles; once
the opposite motion starts, the wall moves towards the bulk with a local pressure
increase, which may cause some bubbles to implode close to the wall. Fig. 2.2
summarizes this relationship.

Figure 2.2: Pressure fluctuations cause bubbles to form and collapse in a liquid.

One component that commonly suffers cavitation damage is the cylinder liner.
It is a hollow cylindrical piece that encloses the combustion chamber and the piston,
and its outer wall is in contact with the circulating coolant liquid. Fig. 2.3 shows
its position in the engine and its cross-section with a piston.
6 CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND

Figure 2.3: Left: location of the cylinder in the engine. Right: Cross-sectional view
of an actual cylinder liner with piston [13].

The piston movement and vibrations originated at other parts of the engine
create the pressure oscillations and bubbling in the coolant, illustrated in Fig. 2.4,
and the outer wall suffers erosion that is usually harsher in the thrust- and anti-thrust
sides of the liner, and along the upper O-ring groove. The severity of the erosion
in this situation is determined by the resistance of the material of which the liner
is made, the temperature, chemical composition and boiling point of the coolant,
and the frequency and amplitude of the vibrations. Coolants with higher boiling
point and viscosity are less aggressive [21], but these properties can be correlated
and are difficult to evaluate in isolation from each other; the addition of corrosion
inhibitors is also beneficial, even when corrosion attack is small or absent. Coolant
temperatures halfway between the boiling and freezing points tend to lead to higher
cavitation rates [9, 13]. Larger amplitudes and higher frequencies cause more erosion,
and occur at high power outputs, when the piston movement is more energetic. Less
clearance between piston and liner reduces vibration, and larger coolant chambers
decrease the probability of bubbles imploding close to the wall [1, 4, 6, 17], both of
which lower cavitation damage. These parameters cannot however be optimized only
for cavitation, as they also affect power output, heat removal and energy efficiency.
Over time, the engine part may sustain serious damage which can result in
surface roughening, chipping and even perforation [6, 13, 16, 22]; circulation of the
coolant may carry over the debris to other parts of the engine and clog nozzles and
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND 7

Figure 2.4: The outer wall of the cylinder liner suffers cavitation erosion from the
circulating coolant around it.

filters.
Addressing cavitation erosion in such systems involves changes in the design of
key engine parts, such as improving geometries of coolant channels and exposed
surfaces, reducing vibrations, and even relocating regions of low and high pressure
to less vulnerable spots [2].

2.3 Review of Research on Cavitation Erosion of Materials

Different experimental methods have been developed in order to analyze the
cavitation erosion behavior of liquids and materials [23, 24]. They all involve
creating pressure changes in a medium and positioning a test sample in the region
where the bubble cloud collapses; the measurements consist usually of weight changes
in the sample at chosen intervals, and can be accompanied by surface observations
via microscopy.
A widely used technique, often referred to as ultrasonic test, comprises a
high-frequency vibrating horn that is immersed in a vessel containing a desired
liquid; it draws power from an external source and its vibrations induce pressure
oscillations in the liquid, instantly creating a cavitating jet [14]. The sample may be
attached to the probe – the direct method – or rest at a distance from its tip – the
indirect method [25]. The apparatus allows for a variety of parameters to be tested
8 CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND

independently, such as the effect of different coolant compositions or temperatures

and the resistance of different materials [13]. The ultrasonic rig is the method of
choice for the experiments carried out for the present work.
A great deal of research has been carried out in order to identify the physical
causes of cavitation, as described in the previous sections. But while extensive
literature exists on the response of metals, no definite parameters stand out as
definitive predictors of their resistance. There is a general knowledge of which ones
perform better or worse; for instance, steels usually have higher resistance than cast
irons [5, 15, 19, 26–28], and among these, nodular irons appear to be superior [5,
19, 29–32], but the variability in chemical composition and microstructure is too
large to allow for all-encompassing conclusions. Several mechanical properties such
as hardness, ultimate tensile strength, Young’s modulus, resilience, toughness and
fatigue life [18, 19] show empirical correlations with measured cavitation damage
which are, however, only valid for some alloys or within a given material class. As
an example, harder lamellar graphite irons can be more resistant than softer ones,
but are still much more vulnerable than steels of the same hardness [19, 26, 33].
Therefore a detailed description of the mechanisms by which the erosion damage
initiates and develops in these materials is needed in order to identify the most
relevant features and properties for a material exposed to a cavitating liquid.
3 Methods and Materials

3.1 Cavitation Testing

Cavitation testing was carried out according to the ASTM-G32 direct method [25].
The ultrasonic apparatus was set to a frequency of 20 kHz, a total amplitude of
50 µm and a nominal power of 2.2 kW. The liquid composition and temperature
were selected in order to best approximate the actual operating conditions in truck
engines. The reference parameters chosen were:

• Liquid: Scania Ready-Mix 35%, a regular antifreeze solution of 35 wt.%

ethylene glycol in water, with additions of corrosion inhibitors;
• Liquid temperature: 82(±1)°C, kept constant by a hot plate placed under the
beaker.
• Tested materials:

– Lamellar gray iron (LGI) with a microstructure of flake-like graphite,

steadite and pearlite. The complete characterization is presented in the
appended Paper 1.
– Austempered ductile iron (ADI) with a microstructure of nodular graphite
and acicular ausferrite. The complete characterization is presented in
the appended Paper 2.

Observations of sample surfaces were made using a Scanning Electron Microscope

(SEM), model Zeiss Gemini, with a secondary electron detector at an accelerating
voltage of 3 kV.
The sample geometry is shown in the drawing (top image) and the photograph
(bottom) in Fig. 3.1. Its diameter is 1.9 cm and the area exposed directly to the
cavitating cloud is 2.7 cm2 .
The test apparatus used is presented schematically in Fig. 3.2. The test sample
is screwed tightly onto a horn and both are immersed in a beaker containing
the test liquid of choice. The beaker is placed on a hot plate for temperature
regulation. A transducer is supplied with electricity and oscillates the horn vertically

9
10 CHAPTER 3. METHODS AND MATERIALS

Figure 3.1: Cavitation test samples.

at high frequency, creating the pressure variations that cause bubbling in the liquid.
At the time steps of choice, the sample is detached from the horn, cleaned with
ethanol, dried by hot air and weighed at a precision of ±0.5µg (and analyzed in the
microscope, if desired).

Figure 3.2: Ultrasonic cavitation test setup.

CHAPTER 3. METHODS AND MATERIALS 11

3.2 Materials - Cast Irons

Cast irons are iron-based alloys containing over 2% (and often more than 3%)
carbon by weight. This high concentration causes the carbon to precipitate,
upon solidification, as graphite particles which have an important influence on
the properties of these materials; they are distributed over a metallic matrix often
consisting of ferrite, pearlite, cementite and steadite when not heat treated.
Graphite in cast irons is classified according to its shape under Forms I – VI,
defined in the standard SS-EN ISO 945-1 [34] and represented in Fig. 3.3. These
forms result from different chemical compositions and solidification conditions and
are termed [35]:

• I: lamellar (or flake) graphite;

• II: crab graphite;

• III: compacted (or vermicular) graphite;

• IV: temper carbon;

• V: irregular spheroidal graphite;

• VI: spheroidal (or nodular) graphite.

Figure 3.3: Classification of cast irons according to graphite form. Relevant to this
work are I: LGI and VI: SGI (the precursor to ADI) [34] (adapted).
12 CHAPTER 3. METHODS AND MATERIALS

Irons are also generally classified and referred to according to their graphite
form; common names include flake iron (I), compacted iron (III), malleable iron
(IV), and ductile iron (VI). The forms (and irons) relevant to this study are I –
lamellar and VI – spheroidal, as they appear in lamellar graphite irons (LGI) and
austempered ductile irons (ADI).

3.2.1 Lamellar Graphite Iron (LGI)

Gray iron (often referred to as simply ‘cast iron’) is the most common type of iron
and contains graphite of form I, thus being classified as lamellar graphite iron (LGI).
It is the material of choice for cylinder liners. Form I can be subdivided into five
distributions A - E, also defined in SS-EN ISO 945-1 [34], Fig. 3.4, as the flakes can
be spread out and oriented in different ways in the matrix [35]:

• A: uniformly distributed, randomly oriented, long flakes;

• B: radially grouped, randomly oriented (rosette groupings);

• C: superimposed flake size, randomly oriented (hypereutectic alloys);

• D: interdendritic segregation, randomly oriented (undercooled);

• E: interdendritic segregation, preferred orientation (hypoeutectic alloys).

Figure 3.4: Graphite distributions in LGI (Form I) [34] (adapted).

CHAPTER 3. METHODS AND MATERIALS 13

More than one distribution may be present in the same iron (for instance, A,
B, D and E) due to temperature gradients, part geometry and segregation during
solidification.
The microstructure of the LGI studied in Paper 1 (where a more detailed
characterization with graphite flake size measurements is given) is shown in Fig. 3.5.
The unetched image to the left shows the graphite flakes in black and the matrix
in white. The etched images in the middle and to the right reveal the matrix
constituents: pearlite in gray/brown stripes and steadite in dotted white.

Figure 3.5: Unetched (left) and etched (middle, right) microstructure of lamellar
graphite iron (LGI). Graphite flakes (black streaks) are distributed in
a matrix of pearlite(etched: striped gray/brown) and steadite (etched:
dotted white).

3.2.2 Austempered Ductile Iron (ADI)

The mechanical properties of SGIs can be improved by transforming their ferritic
and pearlitic matrix into ausferrite, a constituent made up of fine needles of ferrite
and carbon-rich austenite. This is achieved by austempering, a heat treatment
also applied to steels to produce bainite – which is also acicular in structure but is
instead made up of ferrite and cementite. The procedure consists of [36–38]:

1. Austenitization: holding at around 900 °C for long enough to completely

transform the matrix into austenite;

2. Quenching: immersion in a salt bath for fast cooling to an austempering

temperature of choice;

3. Austempering: holding at constant temperature (250-400 °C) in the salt bath

until the austenite completely transforms into ausferrite (acicular austenite
and ferrite);

4. Cooling to room temperature.

The resulting material retains the spheroidal graphite and most of the ductility
from SGI, and is thus called austempered ductile iron (ADI). Chemical composition
and part geometry define the holding times for austenitization and austempering;
14 CHAPTER 3. METHODS AND MATERIALS

excessive treatment times in the latter can cause the austenite to undesirably
decompose into ferrite and cementite. The austempering temperature has the
largest influence over the final mechanical properties. High temperatures (towards
the 400 °C upper limit) result in a coarser structure and larger austenite fractions,
granting higher ductility but lower hardness and yield strength. Lower temperatures
(towards the 250 °C lower limit) have the opposite effect, producing finer and harder
structures with higher hardness and lower ductility [30, 39–41].
The experiments reported in Paper 2 were carried out on three ADIs, originally
obtained from the same casting batch and austempered at different temperatures
following the designations EN-GJS-900-8, EN-GJS-1050-6 and EN-GJS.1200-3 stated
in SS-EN 1564 [42]. The resulting materials were ADIs of low, medium and high
hardness. Their microstructures are shown in Fig. 3.6. The unetched images to the
left show the distribution of graphite spheroids in the matrix. All ADIs have similar
graphite area fractions and size distributions, and a more complete characterization
is presented in the appended Paper 2. The etched images show the acicular structure
of the matrix, consisting of needle-like ferrite and carbon-rich austenite, and is thus
called ausferrite. All three materials were etched with Nital for 5 seconds.

Figure 3.6: Unetched (left) and etched (middle, right) microstructures of three
austempered ductile irons (ADIs). Graphite spheroids (black nodules)
are distributed in an ausferritic matrix (etched: needle-like light/dark
gray).
CHAPTER 3. METHODS AND MATERIALS 15

The results of the research here presented consist of mass loss curves of several
materials, which are obtained directly from the cavitation testing procedures formerly
described, and images from the surface of tested samples at sequential time steps,
which support and explain the conclusions drawn from mass loss data.
The following sections describe the similarities and differences between the
behavior of the materials analyzed in Papers 1 and 2, namely lamellar graphite
iron (LGI – Paper 1) and three austempered ductile irons (ADIs – Paper 2) with
increasing hardness (ADI Low, ADI Mid, ADI High).

3.2.3 Chemical Composition and Graphite Distribution

The chemical compositions for LGI and ADI are shown in Table 3.1. Only one
composition is presented for the three ADIs since they originated from the same
SGI batch prior to the heat treatment, having thus the same composition.

Table 3.1: Chemical composition of the LGI and ADI tested samples, wt%. Fe is
the balance element.

Element weight %
Material C Si Mn P S Cr Ni Ti Cu
LGI 3.01 2.06 0.57 0.38 0.05 0.06 0.38 0.02 0.13
Mg Mo
ADI 3.5 2.5 0.4 0.02 0.008 0.026 0.071 0.03 0.014

The average Brinell and Vickers hardness values measured for the materials is
shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Average Brinell and Vickers hardness, with standard deviations, of the
ADIs tested.

Material HB 2.5 / 187.5 HV 1.0

LGI 268 ±3 284 ± 20
ADI Low 279 ±4 313 ± 12
ADI Med 333 ±1 364 ± 15
ADI High 469 ±2 523 ± 49

The materials’ graphite area percentage and graphite particle size distribution,
measured from polished, unetched metallographic samples from the same batches as
their respective cavitation test material, is shown in Table 3.3.
16 CHAPTER 3. METHODS AND MATERIALS

Table 3.3: Graphite area percentage and particle size distribution of tested materials.

Size Class (SC)(%)

Graphite SC 1–4 SC 5 SC 6 SC 7 SC 8
Material Area % >120µm 60–120µm 30–60µm 15–30µm <15µm
LGI 9.6 3.3 13.5 26.5 35.0 21.8
ADI 9.9 0 0.6 23.2 71.3 4.8

Fig. 3.7-a helps visualize and compare the distributions. The ADIs have nodules
of a more homogeneous diameter, resulting in a narrow distribution over the smaller
particle sizes. LGI has short and long flakes, and this is reflected in its distribution
over a wide length range. Fig. 3.7-b displays the same distribution, but over the
equivalent graphite size classes.

Figure 3.7: Size distribution of graphite particles in the LGI and ADIs used for the
test samples.
4 Results

4.1 Mass loss measurements

The quantitative results of cavitation testing are expressed in cumulative mass loss
over time for each material, as shown in Fig. 4.1. The data for LGI comprises
the measurements made for Paper 1 and experiments made after its publication;
the data for ADI is the same as that of the three ADIs (ADI Low, Mid and High)
studied in Paper 2. The curves allow for direct comparison of the damage suffered
by each material at any given moment and also represent their behavior during
testing. It should be noted that each point in these curves is obtained from the
average of measurements from three samples, and their respective error bars indicate
the standard deviation of these three values.
Fig. 4.1-a shows the complete mass loss curves for the four materials over 240
min (4 h) of testing. LGI has the highest mass loss already within a few minutes
and maintains it throughout the whole time range, indicating that it is the most
sensitive to cavitation erosion; it is followed by ADI Low, ADI Mid and ADI High.
The ratios of mass lost after 4 h for LGI, ADI Low, ADI Mid and ADI High are
3.5 : 2.6 : 1.6 : 1. All materials follow a similar general trend of rapid weight loss
during the first 5 minutes, slowing down afterwards and reaching a nearly linear
stage , which will be referred to as ‘steady-state’ in this work for simplicity, after
around 30 min.
Fig. 4.1-b zooms in on the first 15 minutes of Fig. 4.1-a and demonstrates that
the quick mass loss is, in fact, more intense in the first 1.5 min, and can account
for a significant amount of the total weight lost by the materials. It will be later
proven that complete graphite removal from the surface is responsible for this. Fig.
4.1-c shows linear regression lines connecting the data points between 30 and 240
min; they fit the data with very little deviation (all have R2 >0.98). Their slopes
are the mass loss rates of each material during the steady state, and also indicate
cavitation erosion sensitivity – especially of the matrix, as will be discussed later.
The ratios of mass loss rates of LGI, ADI Low, ADI Mid and ADI High are 5.0 :
4.3 : 1.5 : 1. Fig. 4.1-d represents the relationship between these mass loss rates
and their respective materials’ bulk (HB) and matrix (HV) hardness. Improved
hardness reduces cavitation erosion rates significantly up to around 400 HV, with

17
18 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Figure 4.1: Cavitation testing data for LGI and three ADIs (a – c) and correlation
with bulk and matrix hardness.

diminishing returns above that. Note that the plotted HB and HV numbers are
the average of 3 and 10 measured values, respectively, and the error bars in HV
represent standard deviation (omitted for HB for clarity because they were smaller
than the markers used).

4.2 Surface evolution

Fig. 4.2 shows SEM images of a typical damage sequence at a fixed region in
LGI, up to the end of a cavitation test. By 1.5 min, all surface graphite has been
already removed, leaving voids where graphite flakes once were, Fig. 4.2-a. Some
pits form at graphite clusters and tips, Figs. 4.2-b and -c, and begin to expand,
preferentially connecting to other graphite sites, Fig. 4.2-c and -d. Later, these
already formed pits to expand laterally and merge, while also forming new pits in
formerly undamaged sites, Fig. 4.2-e. Continued cavitation attack finally leads to
roughening of the matrix and of the previously sharper, cleaved fracture surfaces,
making them look grainy and irregular, Fig. 4.2-f.
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 19

Figure 4.2: Typical surface evolution of LGI over 4 h of cavitation testing.

Fig. 4.3 shows the surface changes that happen at a fixed region in ADI Low
for the full test duration. Some graphite nodules are partially attacked in the
center, while others are extracted entirely as early as 10 s; all nodules are completely
removed by 5 min, Fig. 4.3- a, -b and -c. Later, the matrix develops some damage
in a pattern resembling etching, and some graphite voids begin to merge, Fig.
4.3-d. Further cavitation exposure causes more roughening of the matrix, eventually
eroding away the etched appearance and rendering it unrecognizable, Figs. 4.3-e
and -f.
20 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Figure 4.3: Typical surface evolution of ADI Low over 4 h of cavitation testing.

4.3 Damage mechanisms

4.3.1 Damage initiation in graphite

The first observable changes in the surfaces of both LGI and ADI take place within
a few seconds of the start of the tests and are related to graphite particles. Fig. 4.4
shows, in high magnification, how graphite can be entirely removed from the surface
while the surrounding matrix remains undamaged. This has been observed for LGI
and ADIs alike, Fig. 4.4-a and -c.
Fig. 4.4-b shows light chipping at the center of some graphite clusters in LGI
at 10 seconds of testing, suggesting that these regions may be significantly weaker
than the rest of the matrix. Damage such as this has not been observed in any of
the ADIs, however.
In Fig. 4.4-c it can be seen that, in ADI, some graphite particles are completely
removed while others are only partially attacked; typically, a hole opens in the
center of the nodule, and the rim protrudes outward, as if being squeezed out of
the material. Fig. 4.4-d suggests that the damage may be very localized, as it is
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 21

possible for one nodule to be extracted entirely while leaving an adjacent particle
– which is possibly not exposed enough – unscathed. Although Figs. 4.4-c and -d
were obtained at 30 s, the phenomena they represent have been observed at 10 s in
all ADI grades. Partial graphite damage has, however, not been observed in LGI.

Figure 4.4: Phase transformations of a liquid into vapor.

It has been observed that surface graphite is completely removed from LGI by
1.5 min and from ADIs by 5 min from the start of cavitation testing. This explains
the spike in mass loss registered for all four materials seen in the plots of Fig. 4.1
and is due to graphite being very weak and weakly bonded to the matrices of cast
irons.

4.3.2 Damage initiation in the matrix

As the graphite is extracted, voids are created and become preferential sites for the
onset of cracking in the matrix. In Fig. 4.5-a, a red circle highlights a pit which has
just formed adjacently to a removed graphite flake. It has a sharp fracture surface
parallel to the flake, which possibly indicates cleavage along a ferrite-cementite
interface; note also the visible pearlite lamellae inside the pit. It must be clarified
that not all graphite must be stripped off the surface (i.e. 1.5 min) in order for
matrix damage to occur; but that individual voids (already present at 10 s, as in
22 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

the image) can promote matrix pitting, and that matrix pitting, in turn, has not
been observed where the graphite is still intact. Similar sidewise matrix pitting was
not found in the ADIs.
A white arrow in Fig. 4.5-a, and Fig. 4.5-b, show a crack connecting two voids.
These thin material sections are weaker and cannot withstand the cavitation impact
for too long; as they are eventually chipped off, they contribute to the mass loss
before 30 min and facilitate void merging.

Figure 4.5: Matrix pitting (a: red circle) and cracking (a: white arrow, b).

Here, the difference between LGI and ADIs lies in the time for such cracks to be
first seen – only 10 s in the former and 5 min in the latter – and is likely due to
the pearlitic LGI matrix being weaker as well as to the graphite morphology itself
being less favorable.

4.3.3 Damage progression and matrix erosion

After the thin sections in LGI are chipped off, pits expand – first by incorporating
nearby voids, Figs. 4.6-a and -b – and then by reaching other pits, Fig. 4.6-c. Thus
the damage proceeds at the expense of the matrix. The fracture surfaces are, until
then, still sharp and indicative of cleavage, but after longer exposures they become
rougher and irregular, Figs. 4.6-d and -e, and so does the surface in general.
The role of the matrix in the development of cavitation damage is also illustrated
in Fig. 4.7. At 15 min, the softer ADI Low (Figs. 4.7-a and -b) appears slightly
eroded and deformed, and the acicular structure of its ausferritic matrix is visible,
in a pattern that can be referred to as ‘mechanical etching’ for simplicity. The ADI
with harder matrix (Figs. 4.7-c and -d) shows no such etching yet.
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 23

Figure 4.6: Evolution of damage at a fixed region in an LGI matrix.

Figure 4.7: Differences in cavitation resistance between a softer ausferritic matrix

(a, b) and a harder one (c, d) in ADIs with similar graphite form and
size.
24 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

In ADIs, the matrix is stronger and degrades more slowly, and large pits and
long cracks are not found. The damage is instead more concentrated on the borders
of graphite voids, which open up and expand slightly; adjacent voids bridge and
merge to varying degrees, Figs. 4.8-a and -b. The surface becomes much rougher
in general, and the mechanical etching previously encountered is eroded beyond
recognition in ADI Low.
In ADI High, Figs. 4.8-c and -d, these events are less intense and seem shifted
to later times, as the ausferrite needles are still visible even after 4 h, explaining
its much lower mass loss rates. It is likely that they would also be eroded away in
longer tests, much like in ADI Low.

Figure 4.8: Voids bridge and merge in ADIs after longer cavitation exposure and the
whole surface becomes rougher. The mechanically etched appearance is
lost in ADI Low (a, b) but not in ADI High (c, d) after 4 h.
5 Discussion

Cast irons are characterized according to graphite and matrix structures. Graphite
shape, size distribution and particle distribution are defined in SS-EN ISO 945 [34].
The matrix structure is described as either as-cast or resulting from a heat treatment.
As-cast matrices usually comprise a combination of ferrite, pearlite and, in grades
alloyed with phosphorus, steadite (such as in the LGI in this work). Heat-treated
matrices may be partly or entirely made up of martensite, bainite, retained austenite
or ausferrite (such as the ADIs studied here). Although these structures have
different hardness, cavitation damage in the LGI and ADIs of this study first
appeared at graphite particles.
This likely happens because graphite is very soft, 5.0 HB [43], and weakly bonded
to the matrix. In the materials with spheroidal graphite particles it is possible
to see an evolution of the damage on the separate graphite particles but in LGI,
partial damage to flakes could not be observed. Fig. 4.4 shows the early damage on
spheroidal graphite. It is unclear if the lamellar graphite particles are always ejected
instantly or if they do crack or break. As well, it is unclear if all nodules in ADI
suffer partial damage before falling out or if some are actually extracted without
fracturing. In addition, complete graphite removal is observed much earlier in LGI
than in all ADIs, even though both had similar graphite area fractions; observations
of the damage mechanisms suggest that graphite form has the largest influence on
damage, and particle size can be more important when comparing irons with the
same graphite form.
In LGIs, the spatial configuration of graphite flakes – i.e. the graphite distribution
– also affects significantly the cavitation sensitivity, with radially sprawling (class B)
flakes being more detrimental, and randomly oriented and spaced (class A) being
more favorable, as discussed in depth in a previous work [13].
As demonstrated by Figs. 4.2 and 4.3, the propagation of damage in the matrix
is influenced by the graphite shape even at later stages. The connectivity and
elongation of flakes in LGI direct the cracking in the surrounding matrix and
accelerate pitting - especially at flake tips and cluster centers - whilst the isolated
nodules in ADI restrict chipping and do not promote cracks in the same way.
Matrix pitting adjacent to a graphite void at very early stages (10 s) also begins
with sharp cracks in pearlite, as previously seen in Fig. 4.5. Steadite, on the other

25
26 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION

hand, does not appear to suffer damage this early; considering that it increases the
cast iron’s hardness (from around 230 HB to around 260 HB) [44–46] and, up to
a certain limit, its general wear resistance [44, 45], it most likely also improves its
cavitation resistance. Small regions where pitting has completely avoided steadite
have been identified, Fig. 5.1:

Figure 5.1: Undamaged steadite next to early-stage pits in pearlite.

In ADI, the damage is in much smaller size scales and concentrated around
nodule borders, which expand slowly; cracks are shorter than in LGI and only easily
seen when two adjacent voids start bridging. Since no large cracks form to chip off
large bits of metal, erosion far away from graphite voids is slow and starts at the
only available weakness: ferrite/austenite boundaries, creating the light mechanical
etching appearance. The onset of mechanical etching is delayed as the hardness
of ausferrite increases, as seen in Fig. 4.7. Given that austenite/ferrite phase
fractions and coarseness are both a function of the heat treatment, it is also unclear
whether ADI Low has worse performance due to a coarser structure or due to a
higher austenite fraction. Furthermore, porosity was not observed to initiate or
promote cracking; and no martensite was found in the cross-sections of the tested
ADI specimens.
The data in Fig. 4.1 shows a linear stage of weight loss for all irons. A possible
explanation is that, as small cracks form and chip material off, they disappear,
but create fractured sites where more cracks form. The slow mass loss from crack
formation and propagation can then be balanced out by the quick mass loss caused
by chipping and establish an equilibrium. Another possibility, not contrary to this
one, is that as weaker sites (graphite voids and existing cracks) are captured by
growing pits, their availability diminishes and existing pits must grow more in order
to incorporate other pits and cracks, thus an equilibrium mass loss rate is reached.
Longer tests could show different linear stages as pits become much larger or deeper.
Both explanations provide insight as to why ADI Low appears rougher than
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION 27

LGI despite having a lower cavitation rate: because ausferrite is tougher than
pearlite [47–50], it does not crack and form pits with the sharp fractures as LGI
does, instead cracking at much smaller scales and producing smaller debris. What
is left on the surface, then, gives it the grainy appearance of Fig. 4.8. In contrast,
LGI has large pits that expand much more quickly, faster than the ‘unpitted’ parts
of the matrix erode. Moreover, its pearlite is not strong enough to just be etched,
and instead gets cracked and pitted sooner.
Still, despite having lower cavitation resistance, LGI is currently preferred for
use in cylinder liners due to its excellent mechanical damping and high thermal
conductivity – needed, respectively, for engine noise reduction and combustion
chamber temperature control. For these same reasons and due to increased costs,
liners cannot receive many of the most common commercial thermal-sprayed coatings
at their outer surface, and their performance against cavitation should to be improved
with a superior microstructure (for example, a more favorable graphite distribution)
and solidification control during casting.
Cylinder liner erosion is undesirable in itself as it may affect surface integrity,
service life and, if a pit is deep enough, cause leakage from and into the combustion
chamber and engine breakdown. But the damage afflicting liners may pose problems
to other components connected to the cooling system as well. The engine coolant
circulates in a closed circuit throughout the cooling channels, and it may carry away
chipped off particles and clog filters and nozzles, and also bring foreign particles
that damage the liner. Even with the shift towards electrical engines pursued by
Scania, many engine parts will still need to be cooled by a liquid, and knowledge on
cavitation erosion mechanisms will remain relevant to them.
Likewise, several other components such as nozzles, pumps, pipes and cylinder
block come into contact with fluids which may experience cavitation; research
into their corresponding materials may provide important knowledge to improve
standards and requirements and also offer solutions to reduce the erosive damage
they suffer, especially considering the different mechanical and tribological properties
each one is required to possess. The research so far has focused on cast iron alloys
exposed to engine coolant, but it should be emphasized that cavitation erosion
damage occurs in a system consisting of material, liquid and operating conditions.
The conditions believed to be of most importance are the pressure and vibrations
the liquid is subjected to, its chemical composition and temperature.
6 Conclusion

The cavitation erosion behavior of lamellar graphite irons (LGIs) and austempered
ductile irons (ADIs) has been investigated in this work, comprising results that have
been reported in the two scientific articles appended.

• Cavitation damage starts with the removal of graphite particles from the
surface. Graphite in LGI is removed faster than in ADI.
• Voids left by the removed graphite become preferential sites for cracking,
creating pits in the matrix which grow over time.
• Pitting begins later and is slower for harder microstructural constituents.
• The mass loss curves at intermediate to late test times show a clear influence
of matrix hardness, and their slopes can be used to quantify and rank matrix
performance. ADIs (ausferritic matrix) are more resistant than LGI (pearlitic
matrix with steadite), and harder ADIs (finer ausferrite) are more resistant
than softer ADIs (coarser ausferrite).

The description of damage mechanisms in LGI help in specifying microstructural

features that reduce the erosion suffered by cylinder liners. As well, ADIs are a
candidate material for pumps and other parts and their cavitation erosion behavior
is of interest for future applications. These results contribute to the development
and improvement of materials used in different engine components of Scania trucks,
improving their service life and reducing maintenance costs.

29
7 Future Work

The analyses so far have focused on cast irons, as the most immediate problems with
cavitation erosion at Scania have been identified in cylinder liners. But cavitation
damage occurs when materials interact with a liquid, and reducing it requires that
engine coolants be also considered in research and design in order to improve the
service life of components and ensure driver safety.
Therefore, the next investigation to be carried out will compare several coolants of
different chemical compositions, as well as aged coolants obtained from high-mileage
trucks, in an attempt to identify the most important factors behind the erosive
damage they cause.
For cast irons in general, the studies of damage mechanisms will continue, and
experiments with ductile irons (SGIs) of varying graphite sizes, as well as compacted
irons (CGIs), are planned. Irons of similar graphite morphology and different matrix
structure, and vice-versa, may also be tested in order to analyze more precisely how
matrix notch sensitivity is affected and how it interferes with cavitation erosion
resistance.
Steels will also be studied, since they are used in many other components that
come into contact with other liquids (such as oil and fuel). Besides their wide
applicability even in other industries, steels also allow for a better microstructure
control, and give the possibility of testing several constituents (ferrite, pearlite,
martensite, bainite) in isolation and in desired combinations. These experiments
can provide insight into particular damage mechanisms of each phase and lead to
optimized microstructures.
Plasma-sprayed coatings are promising alternatives for some applications and
will be studied as well; some test samples have been produced and are ready for
experiments. Surface textures and other modifications (for instance, surface laser
melting of cast irons) are also of interest and may be used when coatings cannot be
used.
Other non-aqueous liquids, such as oils and fuels, can also be investigated. They
have been observed to cause cavitation damage to pumps, housings and nozzles,
and differ greatly from the aqueous coolant in chemical properties and viscosity,
and may interact differently with the materials they flow around.

31
32 CHAPTER 7. FUTURE WORK

Cavitation is also affected by operating conditions – temperature, vibration

frequency and amplitude, fluid velocity, hydrostatic pressure and the nature of
the pressure changes on the liquid. Alterations to the geometry of compartments
and channels, and even the introduction of out-of-phase vibrations to annihilate
undesired pressure oscillations, may also be considered in order to reduce cavitation.
Various rig setups exist to simulate different cavitating environments - some relying
on converging/diverging channels, for example, to create a bubble cloud at a fixed
location where the sample is placed – and can provide more realistic results depending
on the intended application as well.
8 Acknowledgements

Scania CV AB is greatly acknowledged for the full support of this research. All
experiments and analyses were carried out at Scania YTM - Materials Technology
in Södertälje, Sweden.
This work has been carried out with the guidance and support of my two
supervisors:
Dr. Jessica Elfsberg believed in me from the beginning and provided me with the
opportunity to do research at Scania, having gone through all the internal company
processes to make this doctoral project happen. She has followed closely all aspects
of the research, contributing her extensive knowledge and experience and helping
me design and modify the experiments, organize the results and decide on further
tests. She has also mentored me at the company and integrated me to the work
environment. I have the deepest respect for her ability as an engineer and researcher,
and am immensely grateful for all the help and guidance she has given me. Thank
you, Jessica!
Prof. Stefan Jonsson has made decisive contributions to the overall quality
and the fine-tuning of the papers I have written, teaching me a great deal about
the presentation of scientific results, and sharing his vast academic and research
experience with me. I appreciate our discussions and the insights they produced,
the suggestions on materials and experiments, the friendship we developed and the
advice given when I needed it.
Jan Linder, my manager at YTMN, has allowed me to grow as a researcher
and professional through his guidance, experience and knowledge. His attention to
detail, spot-on questions and invaluable insight have shown the potential and the
shortcomings of my ideas, leading to papers and results of much higher quality. I
am very grateful to him for bringing me into the team and for contributing to my
research plans and adjustments.
I am very thankful to Jill Sundberg for the supervision during my Master thesis,
the help with the transition to the PhD and for all the support and guidance the
entire time. Without that first opportunity, I would not be where I am now. I also
appreciate our continued cooperation with cavitation work.
Anders Thibblin and Ragna Elger are acknowledged for their previous cavitation
experiments and results obtained, for the help with the test equipment and in

33
34 CHAPTER 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

interpreting results, for teaching and assisting me with the SEM, and for interesting
discussions about materials.
I thank my team colleagues at Scania YTMN - Materials Technology for
Powertrain for their support, collaboration and sharing of their broad technical
knowledge and experience. Special thanks to Alejandro Leiro, Mathias König and
Fareed Khan for the help with software and practical tasks and for all the discussions,
answers, tips and chats!
I also thank Shengmei Xiang for conversations and tips about university courses,
KTH processes and contacts and the PhD life, and for the help with the formatting
of this thesis.
The technicians at Scania Mechanical Workshop and Scania Materials Technology
are acknowledged for machining and producing cavitation test samples with quality
and precision and for helping with metallographic sample preparation.
Lars Gunnarsson, my former manager at Scania, is acknowledged for overseeing
my work a consultant for Scania, before I officially started my PhD.
All my friends in Brazil have helped me keep going and cheered me up - thanks
for all the fun Skype calls, messages and the time we get to spend together whenever
I travel there.
My girlfriend Dina has been endlessly caring and supportive, and I am lucky I
can always count on her. Her intelligence and dedication inspire me to do my best
and work hard, and she has made my days much happier. I am really thankful for
the memories we shared – and the ones we will!
Most important of all, my family is dearly missed and although one visit a year
is never enough, I cherish their company and always make the most out of our time
together. My mother Gláucia and my father Márcio have always believed in me and
pushed me to keep going and aiming higher in spite of bad days and uncertain times.
Their advice, patience and love were essential to the decisions I made and the goals
I achieved, and my home will always be with them. Muitas saudades de vocês!

Márcio Freitas de Abreu

Stockholm, October 2021
Bibliography

[1] B. Steck, G. Sommerfeld, and V. Schneider, “Cavitation on wet cylinder

liners of heavy duty diesel engines”, in SAE Technical Paper, SAE
International, Oct. 2006. doi: 10.4271/2006-01-3477.
[2] B. Steck, “Avoiding cavitation on wet cylinder liners of heavy duty diesel
engines by parameter changes”, in SAE Technical Paper, SAE International,
Oct. 2008. doi: 10.4271/2008-36-0073.
[3] Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2018). “Cavitation”.
https://www.britannica.com/science/cavitation Access: 31/03/2021.
[4] Z. Yu-Kang, H. Jiu-Gen, and F. Hammitt, “Cavitation erosion of diesel
engine wet cylinder liners”, Wear, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 321–328, 1982, issn:
0043-1648. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(82)90070-9.
[5] J. Laguna-Camacho, R. Lewis, M. Vite-Torres, and J. Méndez-Méndez, “A
study of cavitation erosion on engineering materials”, Wear, vol. 301, no. 1,
pp. 467–476, 2013, Wear of Materials 2013, issn: 0043-1648. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2012.11.026.
[6] Z. Yu-Kang, H. Jiu-Gen, and F. Hammitt, “Cavitation erosion of cast iron
diesel engine liners”, Wear, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 329–335, 1982, issn: 0043-1648.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(82)90071-0.
[7] B. Sreedhar, S. Albert, and A. Pandit, “Cavitation damage: Theory and
measurements – a review”, Wear, vol. 372-373, pp. 177–196, 2017, issn:
0043-1648. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2016.12.009.
[8] A. J. Szeri, B. D. Storey, A. Pearson, and J. R. Blake, “Heat and mass
transfer during the violent collapse of nonspherical bubbles”, Physics of
Fluids, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 2576–2586, 2003. doi: 10.1063/1.1595647.
[9] J. M. Chen and G. J. Leng, “The study of cavitation erosion protection
performance of heavy-duty engine coolants”, in Material Science, Civil
Engineering and Architecture Science, Mechanical Engineering and
Manufacturing Technology II, ser. Applied Mechanics and Materials, vol. 651,
Trans Tech Publications Ltd, Nov. 2014, pp. 948–952. doi:
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.651-653.948.

35
36 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[10] C. E. Brennen, Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics. Cambridge University Press,

2013. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107338760.
[11] C. Wenge, G. Chenqing, Z. Kang, and S. Fusan, “Correlation of cavitation
erosion resistance and mechanical properties of some engineering steels”,
Journal of Materials Science, vol. 41, pp. 2151–2153, Apr. 2006. doi:
10.1007/s10853-006-5209-8.
[12] R. Singh, S. Tiwari, and S. Mishra, “Cavitation erosion in hydraulic turbine
components and mitigation by coatings: Current status and future needs”,
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, vol. 21, pp. 1539–1551,
Jul. 2012. doi: 10.1007/s11665-011-0051-9.
[13] M. Abreu, “Experimental study of metallic surfaces exposed to cavitation”,
M.S. thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2018.
[14] C. Haosheng, L. Jiang, C. Darong, and W. Jiadao, “Damages on steel surface
at the incubation stage of the vibration cavitation erosion in water”, Wear,
vol. 265, no. 5, pp. 692–698, 2008, issn: 0043-1648. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2007.12.011.
[15] W. Tomlinson and M. Talks, “Erosion and corrosion of pure iron under
cavitating conditions”, Ultrasonics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 171–175, 1991, issn:
0041-624X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-624X(91)90048-D.
[16] M. Dular and A. Osterman, “Pit clustering in cavitation erosion”, Wear,
vol. 265, no. 5, pp. 811–820, 2008, issn: 0043-1648. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2008.01.005.
[17] R. Hercamp, “An overview of cavitation corrosion of diesel cylinder liners”, in
Engine Coolant Testing: Third Volume, R. Beal, Ed. ASTM International,
1993, pp. 107–127. doi: 10.1361/asmhba0001001.
[18] R. Richman and W. McNaughton, “Correlation of cavitation erosion behavior
with mechanical properties of metals”, Wear, vol. 140, no. 1, pp. 63–82, 1990,
issn: 0043-1648. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(90)90122-Q.
[19] S. Hattori and R. Ishikura, “Revision of cavitation erosion database and
analysis of stainless steel data”, Wear, vol. 268, no. 1, pp. 109–116, 2010, issn:
0043-1648. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2009.07.005.
[20] S. Rebsdat and D. Mayer, “Ethylene glycol”, in. Jun. 2000, isbn:
9783527306732. doi: 10.1002/14356007.a10_101.
[21] G. Chandekar, R. Hercamp, and D. Hudgens, “Numerical model of effect of
coolant physical properties on the diesel engine liner cavitation”, in SAE
Technical Paper 2012-01-1682, vol. 9, Sep. 2012. doi:
10.4271/2012-01-1682.
[22] K. Chiu, F. Cheng, and H. Man, “Evolution of surface roughness of some
metallic materials in cavitation erosion”, Ultrasonics, vol. 43, no. 9,
pp. 713–716, 2005, issn: 0041-624X. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2005.03.009.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 37

[23] V. Cojocaru, V. CAMPIAN, and D. Frunzaverde, “A comparative analysis of

the methods used for testing the cavitation erosion resistance on the
vibratory devices”, UPB Scientific Bulletin, Series D: Mechanical
Engineering, vol. 77, pp. 257–262, Nov. 2015.
[24] G. L. Chahine, J.-P. Franc, and A. Karimi, “Laboratory testing methods of
cavitation erosion”, in Advanced Experimental and Numerical Techniques for
Cavitation Erosion Prediction, K.-H. Kim, G. Chahine, J.-P. Franc, and
A. Karimi, Eds. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2014, pp. 21–35. doi:
10.1007/978-94-017-8539-6_2.
[25] ASTM G32-16, “Standard test method for cavitation erosion using vibratory
apparatus”, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.astm.org/Standards/G32.
[26] D. Li, D. Chen, and P. Liang, “Enhancement of cavitation erosion resistance
of 316 l stainless steel by adding molybdenum”, Ultrasonics Sonochemistry,
vol. 35, pp. 375–381, 2017, issn: 1350-4177. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2016.10.015.
[27] S. A. Karrab, M. A. Doheim, M. S. Aboraia, and S. M. Ahmed, “Study of
Cavitation Erosion Pits on 1045 Carbon Steel Surface in Corrosive Waters”,
Journal of Tribology, vol. 134, no. 1, Feb. 2012, issn: 0742-4787. doi:
10.1115/1.4005646.
[28] H. Feller and Y. Kharrazi, “Cavitation erosion of metals and alloys”, Wear,
vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 249–260, 1984, issn: 0043-1648. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(84)90199-6.
[29] A. Y. Beregovenko, I. V. Kramarenko, and N. I. Afonin, “The
micromechanism of cavitation erosion for gray cast iron with lamellar
graphite”, Strength of Materials, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1203–1205, Sep. 1986,
issn: 1573-9325. doi: 10.1007/BF01522804.
[30] M. Dojčinović, O. Eric, D. Rajnovic, L. Sidjanin, and S. Balos, “The
morphology of ductile cast iron surface damaged by cavitation”, Metall Mater
Eng, vol. 18, pp. 165–176, Jan. 2012.
[31] A. Orłowicz, M. Mróz, M. Tupaj, A. Trytek, M. Jacek, and M. Radoń,
“Cavitation erosion of nodular cast iron microstructural effects”, Archives of
Foundry Engineering, vol. 17, Dec. 2017. doi: 10.1515/afe-2017-0141.
[32] K. Balan, A. Reddy, V. Joshi, and G. Sundararajan, “The influence of
microstructure on the erosion behaviour of cast irons”, Wear, vol. 145, no. 2,
pp. 283–296, 1991, issn: 0043-1648. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(91)90136-I.
[33] T. Okada, Y. Iwai, and A. Yamamoto, “A study of cavitation erosion of cast
iron”, Wear, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 297–312, 1983, issn: 0043-1648. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(83)90271-5.
38 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[34] ISO 945-1:2019(EN), “Microstructure of cast irons — part 1: Graphite

classification by visual analysis”, International Organization for
Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.iso.org/standard/77568.html.
[35] MalayaSteel. (2011). “Graphite structures in cast iron”.
http://malayasteel.blogspot.com/search/label/GRAPHITE\
%20STRUCTURES\%20IN\%20CAST\%20IRONS Access: 31/03/2021.
[36] A. Pimentel and W. Guesser, “Tratamento térmico de austêmpera em ferro
fundido nodular com adições de nióbio e de cromo”, Matéria (Rio de
Janeiro), vol. 22, Jan. 2017. doi: 10.1590/s1517-707620170002.0148.
[37] B. Souza, T. Ribeiro, F. Aoutin, and C. Santos, “Austempering heat
treatments of ductile iron using molten metal baths”, Materials and
Manufacturing Processes, vol. 33, pp. 1–7, Jan. 2018. doi:
10.1080/10426914.2018.1424909.
[38] Zanardi Fonderie S.p.a. (). “Austempering - heat treatment of ductile iron”.
https://zanardifonderie.com/en/foundry-process/austempering/
Access: 27/03/2021.
[39] H. J. Hernández, “Mathematical model of thermal and microstructural
evolution during austempering of ductile iron”, Materials Performance and
Characterization, vol. 1, pp. 1–14, Jan. 2012.
[40] M. Dojcinovic, O. Eric, D. Rajnovic, L. Sidjanin, and S. Balos, “Effect of
austempering temperature on cavitation behaviour of unalloyed adi material”,
Materials Characterization, vol. 82, pp. 66–72, Aug. 2013. doi:
10.1016/j.matchar.2013.05.005.
[41] O. E. Cekic, M. Dojcinovic, D. Rajnovic, L. Sidjanin, and S. Balos,
“Microstructure and cavitation behaviour of alloyed austempered ductile
irons”, International Journal of Cast Metals Research, vol. 31, no. 5,
pp. 279–287, 2018. doi: 10.1080/13640461.2018.1446385.
[42] SS-EN 1564, “Founding : Ausferritic spheroidal graphite cast irons”, Svenska
institutet för standarder, Stockholm, Sweden, 2011.
[43] MaterialProperties. (2021). “Graphite – material table – applications – price”.
https://material-properties.org/graphite-properties-
application-price/ Access: 11/05/2021.
[44] H. Abbasi, M. Bazdar, and A. Halvaee, “Effect of phosphorus as an alloying
element on microstructure and mechanical properties of pearlitic gray cast
iron”, Materials Science and Engineering A-structural Materials Properties
Microstructure and Processing - MATER SCI ENG A-STRUCT MATER,
vol. 444, pp. 314–317, Jan. 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.msea.2006.08.108.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 39

[45] I.-C. Park, H.-K. Lee, and S.-J. Kim, “Microstructure and cavitation damage
characteristics of surface treated gray cast iron by plasma ion nitriding”,
Applied Surface Science, vol. 477, pp. 147–153, 2019, International Conference
on Surfaces, Coatings and Interfaces Korea 2017, issn: 0169-4332. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.11.112.
[46] D. Samuelsson, “Analysis of microstructural strain-fields in grey cast iron”,
M.S. thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, 2011.
[47] Y. Li and X. Chen, “Microstructure and mechanical properties of
austempered high silicon cast steel”, Materials Science and Engineering: A,
vol. 308, pp. 277–282, Jun. 2001. doi: 10.1016/S0921-5093(00)01779-2.
[48] Y. Amran, A. Katsman, P. Schaaf, and M. Bamberger, “Influence of copper
addition and temperature on the kinetics of austempering in ductile iron”,
eng, Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B, vol. 41, no. 5,
pp. 1052–1058, 2010, issn: 1073-5615.
[49] Y. Amran and A. Katsman, “Quantitative analysis of austempering kinetics
of ductile iron with cu addition”, Materials Science and Technology, vol. 29,
no. 5, pp. 529–533, 2013. doi: 10.1179/1743284712Y.0000000175.
[50] C. Wu and T. Shih, “Phase transformation and fatigue properties of
austempered ductile irons”, International Journal of Cast Metals Research,
vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 125–134, 2002. doi: 10.1080/13640461.2002.11819471.
Appended Papers

41