See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330231483

The Effect of the Substitution of Silicon by Aluminum on the Properties of

Lamellar Graphite Iron

Article in International Journal of Metalcasting · January 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s40962-018-00303-y

CITATIONS READS

11 352

5 authors, including:

Edurne Aguado Pello Larranaga

IK4-AZTERLAN IK4-AZTERLAN
15 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS 54 PUBLICATIONS 706 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Doru M. Stefanescu Rosemarie Suarez

The Ohio State University la concsolacion university Phlippines
424 PUBLICATIONS 7,143 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 239 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Doru M. Stefanescu on 19 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE EFFECT OF THE SUBSTITUTION OF SILICON BY ALUMINUM ON THE PROPERTIES
OF LAMELLAR GRAPHITE IRON

E. Aguado, M. Ferrer, and P. Larrañaga

Área Ingenierı́a, I?D y Procesos Metalúrgicos, IK4-Azterlan, Durango, Spain

D.M. Stefanescu
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

R. Suárez
Veigalan Estudio, Durango, Spain

Copyright Ó 2019 American Foundry Society

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40962-018-00303-y

Abstract

In cast iron, silicon and aluminum are elements that pro-
mote graphite precipitation and strengthen the alloy by
solid solution. In the present work, Si has been substituted
by Al leading to values that easily surpass standard
properties of Fe–C–Si gray cast irons, reaching a strength
of 466 MPa at moderate hardness (250 HB) for an iron
with 3.08% C, 3.15% Al and 0.16% Si. Sequences of heats
increasing Al content were carried out. It was found that
the UTS increases with the Al content, reaching a maxi-
mum at about 3% Al, after which it decreases. Graphite
area measurements show a minimum at the maximum UTS,
with graphite exhibiting random orientation. Carbides are
avoided above 1.5% Al for very low Si content (about
0.2%) in Y2 keel blocks (25 mm thickness). Plates as thin
as 2.5 mm were cast free of carbides from irons with more
than 3% Al, which makes this material very desirable for
thin wall castings. Additions of other elements were nec-
essary, including 0.35% chromium, 0.55% manganese and
0.075% tin to obtain a pearlitic structure.
Keywords: aluminum alloyed gray iron, high tensile
strength gray iron, Fe–C–Al alloy

Introduction amount of slag, iron foundries have avoided the use of

Gray iron, a Fe–C–Si alloy that is one of the most common
ferrous alloys used in the metal casting industry, requires
silicon in its composition to avoid metastable iron carbide
solidification. Because aluminum is a strong graphite pro-
moter, its addition to iron is a likely substitute for silicon.
Indeed, aluminum increases carbon solubility in the matrix,
decreases the amount of carbon in the eutectic (Ceut) and
increases the eutectic temperature up to 15% Al (Fig-
ure 1).1 Yet, because small additions of aluminum to
lamellar graphite iron may promote pinholes or a greater
This paper is an invited submission to IJMC selected from presen-
tations at the 73rd World Foundry Congress, held September 23–27,
2018, in Krakow, Poland, and has been expanded from the original
presentation.
aluminum in standard gray iron. However, more significant
additions (e.g., 2.4% Al) have been shown to increase
resistance to oxidation.2,3 Oxidation-resistance high-alu-
minum (24% Al) cast iron has also been reported.4
A significant advancement was the development of gray
iron with 2–5% Al and low silicon, which exhibited higher
strength at lower hardness compared to equivalent silicon
gray iron, and also good machinability. Irons with 2.8% C,
3% Al and 1% Si have been successfully cast free of car-
bides in thin sections down to 3.2 mm in sand and metal
molds.5 After Defrancq et al.6,7 reported tensile strengths of
the order of 520 MPa on 30-mm rods of calcium-modified
2.5% C, 1.8% Al and 0.8% Si gray irons, the Fe–C–Al
system irons were explored for applications in construction

536 International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 13, Issue 3, 2019


Figure 1. Effect of aluminum on the eutectic tempera-
ture and carbon content.1
and agricultural equipment.5 It was also found that the
tensile strength of 2.4 and 4.3% Al irons exceeds that of
conventional silicon gray iron at higher temperatures in the
range of 27–538 °C.3,8
Another interesting property of Fe–C–Al irons is its good
sound-damping capability. Indeed, as shown by Petitbon
and Wallace,3 a 2.9% C, 6% Al, 0.8% Si gray iron has
better damping capability than conventional medium- and
coarse-lamellar graphite silicon irons.
The influence of Al as a potential substitute for Si in
compacted graphite iron was also investigated,9–11 and
advantages in processing and mechanical properties were
reported. The effect of aluminum alloying in ductile iron
was also studied. While, according to Muhmond and Fre-
driksson,12 magnesium treatment of high Si and Al cast
iron alloys is ineffective because of the difficulty of for-
mation of MgO, several investigators13–15 reported good
nodularity in low-silicon (\ 1.25%) high-aluminum
(2–6%) Fe–C–Al irons.
Research Strategy
Experimental heats were produced in a 100-kg medium
frequency induction furnace (250 Hz, 100 kW). The
charge materials consisted of 75 kg of low alloying steel
scrap with the following typical composition:
0.010–0.015% C, 0.009–0.010% Si, 0.15–0.17% Mn,
0.005–0.008% P, balance Fe. After melting, the chemical
composition was adjusted as needed using FeMn (74.8%
Mn, 2.13% Si, 5.49% C, 0.082% P, balance Fe), FeCr
(61.10% Cr, 7.83% C, 1.19% Si, 0.60% Ni, 0.16% Mn,
0.11% Ti, balance Fe), Sn (99.93% Sn, 0.039% Pb,
0.0092% Bi, 0.0064% Fe, 0.0012% Ni, 0.0011% In) and
carburizing material (graphite [ 99%). After superheating
to 1500 °C, 50 kg of metal was transferred into the pouring
ladle to warm the ladle. This melt was tapped back to the
furnace, and at that very moment, Al addition (99.922% Al,
0.078% Fe) was carried out in the stream. Al contents
ranged from 0.5 to 5.5%. The melt was superheated again
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 13, Issue 3, 2019
to 1500 °C, and 50 kg of metal was transferred into the
pouring ladle and then poured into the test castings.
Three types of test castings were used, as follows: (1)
independent Y2 keel blocks; (2) molds with three different
size keel blocks (Y1, Y2 and Y3); and (3) molds with
vertical plates (Figure 2). All of them were resin-bonded
sand molds. Except for independent Y2 keel blocks, filters
were included in the gating system to minimize aluminum
oxide transport into the molds. All samples were inoculated
with 0.2% of a complex commercial inoculant (62.6% Si,
1.01% Al, 0.22% Mg, 1.79% Ca, 0.11% Ti, 0.023% P,
5.96% Mn, 6.77% Zr, 0.65% Ba, balance Fe). In the case of
the three keel blocks and different thickness vertical plates,
the inoculation was made in the chamber designed for this
purpose (Figure 2), while for independent keel blocks the
inoculant was added on the bottom of the mold.
The dimensions of the keel blocks and plates are given in
Table 3. The thickness of all plates was measured before
obtaining the samples for mechanical testing. The inde-
pendent Y2 keel blocks were used for the study of the
effect of chemistry and other variables on the mechanical
properties. In the case of plates, flat specimens of the same
thickness were obtained (some slight sanding was carried
out to smooth the surface). From the Y1 keel blocks,
8-mm-diameter tensile test samples were prepared, while
from Y2 and Y3 keel blocks again 16-mm-diameter tensile
test samples were obtained. Additionally, from each heat a
standard thermal analysis cup (36 9 36 9 40 mm) in
which 0.2% of inoculant was placed at the bottom and a
sample for chemical analysis were cast.
Samples for optical microscopy analysis were prepared
close to the surface area of the tensile strength probes.
Graphite distribution type and amount (area%) were car-
ried out by image analysis. Afterward, the samples were
etched with Nital 5 (5% nitric acid, 95% ethanol) to reveal
the matrix structure with the aim of evaluating the pre-
cipitated ferrite content.
The main experimental variables and goals set for the
various heats are summarized in Table 1. Heats were tar-
geted for different goals including optimization of chemi-
cal composition, documenting the effect of cooling rate and
of holding time on Al fading in the furnace and, hence, its
effect on the mechanical properties. Heat #17 was pro-
duced to evaluate aluminum fading while holding in the
melting furnace. In this heat, Al was added only once in the
furnace at the beginning of the experiment. Then, test
castings were poured at specified time intervals directly
from the furnace, while holding the temperature in the
range 1480–1500 °C in the furnace.
537
 Figure 2. Solid models of the samples used. (a) Keel blocks; (b) vertical plates.
Experimental Results
Chemical analysis and static mechanical properties
obtained in the independent Y2 keel block samples in each
heat are summarized in Table 2. In addition to the listed
elements, the test castings contained \ 0.01% Mo and \
0.03% Ni.
The mechanical properties obtained on plates of different
thickness and keel blocks are shown in Table 3. The
cooling rates in the table were obtained from castings
instrumented with thermocouples and poured from another
cast iron melt in the temperature range 900–800 °C.
Discussion
Carbon Equivalent
The calculation of carbon equivalent (CE) was based on the
effect of a third element on the solubility of carbon in
liquid iron (solubility factors of third elements in carbon-
saturated Fe–C–X melts) as compiled by Neumann16 and
discussed in extenso in reference 17. The corresponding
equation is:
CE ¼ %C þ 0:31  %Si þ 0:22  %Al þ 0:33  %P þ 0:4
 %S  0:027  %Mn
Eqn: 1
This equation shows that aluminum reduces the solubility
of C in the austenite, which increases the graphitization.
However, Mampaey13 suggested the equation:
538
CE ¼ %C þ 0:25  %Si þ 0:083  %Al Eqn: 2
The reference does not specify how this equation was
obtained, but since the coefficient 0.25 is used for silicon, it
is reasonable to conclude that it is a carbon equivalent
liquidus equation, which is established empirically from
regression analysis of experimental data. It also attributes a
much smaller effect of aluminum on the CE as compared
with the solubility factor equation. In this paper, the
equation based on solubility factors is used.
Effect of Aluminum on Mechanical Properties
Figure 3a shows tensile strength raw data evolution versus
Al content. Some scattering can be observed. As there are
some deviations in chemical composition between heats
and as C is one of the main elements that influences UTS in
gray cast iron, the same graph has been divided into three
different C contents: below 3.1% (Figure 3b), in the range
3.1–3.3% (Figure 3c) and above 3.3% (Figure 3d).
These graphs show that there is an optimum range
(2.5–3.5%) of Al content in which the UTS is maximized,
achieving above 460 MPa at moderate hardness (250 HB)
in heat #9 with 3.08% C, 0.08% Si and 3.15% Al. In
Figure 3a, b, a standard Fe–C–Si gray iron (heat #30) is
represented by a closed triangle at 0.01% Al level. As it can
be seen, the substitution of silicon by aluminum results in a
remarkable improvement of the tensile strength, from
268 MPa in a standard Fe–C–Si iron (3.07% C, 1.95% Si)
with 3.7% CE, to 335–466 MPa in Fe–C–Al irons with
3.64–3.84% CE (about 3% C, 0.20% Si and 2.5–3.5%Al).
Strength exceeding 500 MPa for a Fe-3%C–2.5%Al iron
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 13, Issue 3, 2019
 Table 1. Experimental Variables (in Bold) and Goals of the Various Heats

Heat Samples Casting method Type of mold Variable

2 2.1–2.4 Pouring ladle Y2 keel block Carbon equivalent 4.13–4.78 CE

3 3.1–3.4 Pouring ladle 3.75–4.01 CE
7 7.1–7.5 Pouring ladle Y2 keel block %Al 0.16–2.12 Al
9 9.1–9.6 Pouring ladle 1.38–3.15 Al
11 11.1–11.6 Pouring ladle Y2 keel block %Al 3.32–5.40 Al
12 12.1–12.6 Pouring ladle 2.50–4.96 Al
13 13.1 Pouring ladle Y2 keel block %Al, thickness 2.85 Al
13.2–13.3 A, B, C plates 3.01–3.88 Al
17 17.1–17.19 Furnace Y2 keel block holding time 3.87–3.48 Al
18 18.1–18.4 Pouring ladle Y2 keel block thickness
Y1, Y2, Y3 mold
30 Furnace Y2 keel block Fe–C–Si iron 0.01 Al

inoculated with SiCa (3.42%C, 0.15%Si, 0.38%Mn,
0.0045%P, 0.04%S and 2.42%Al) was reported by
Defrancq et al., as shown in Figure 4. In most cases, %Si
ranged between 0.11 and 0.2%. However, according to
Defrancq et al.7, silicon levels as high as 0.8% can be used
without a decrease in the strength of the Fe–C–Al iron, as
illustrated in Figure 4b.
To explain the effect of aluminum on the tensile properties,
it is necessary to understand its effect on graphite shape
and amount and on the matrix (pearlite/ferrite ratio). Gra-
phite area measurements were taken on metallographic
samples from heats #9 and #11. It was found that at similar
C and Si levels the measured graphite area decreased until
about 3%Al content and then increases again at some
extent, as shown in Figure 5a. It means that there is an
optimum Al content at which the amount of precipitated
graphite decreases, and therefore, the mechanical proper-
ties increase.
The reason for the lower amount of graphite with higher
amounts of Al resides in the effect of aluminum on the
solubility of carbon in the liquid and the austenite. For the
eutectic temperature, equilibrium thermodynamic calcula-
tions for carbon solubility in the eutectic liquid (%Ceut ) and
carbon solubility in the austenite (%Cc ) can be performed
with the following equations:16,17
%Ceut ¼ 4:2  0:31  %Si  0:22  %Al  0:33  %P þ 0:4
 %S þ 0:027  %Mn
Eqn: 3
%Cc ¼ 2:1  0:11  %Si þ 0:04  %Al  0:35  %P  0:08
 %S þ 0:006  %Mn
Eqn: 4
From the results of calculations presented in Figure 5b, it is
seen that carbon solubility increases with aluminum in both
the eutectic and the austenite. Then, the fraction of eutectic
can be obtained from the lever rule:



Eutfrac ¼ %Canal  %Cc = %Ceut  %Cc Eqn: 5
The equilibrium fraction eutectic as a function of
aluminum for iron from heats #9 and #11 (average %C ¼
3:12 and %Si ¼ 0:14) plotted in Figure 5b decreases with
higher aluminum. Finally, the amount of graphite in the
microstructure can be calculated as
%Gr ¼ Eutfrac  %Greut


¼ Eutfrac  %Ceut  %Cc = 100  %Cc Eqn: 6
The change in the mass% graphite as a function of Al for
irons from heat #9 and #11 calculated with Eqn. 6 is
plotted in Figure 5a. It confirms the overall trend of
measurement data for graphite area shown in the same
figure. The discontinuity in the decreasing graphite area
trend at about 3% can be attributed to the coarser graphite
for the samples having around 3% Al (see, for example,
Figure 8b), probably resulting from better inoculation
efficiency. Thus, it can be concluded that the lower
amount of graphite and higher amount of austenite for
the same amount of carbon is the main reason for the
increase in strength with higher aluminum.
The preceding thermodynamics analysis was performed
based on the equations developed by Neumann16 for the
physicochemical behavior of carbon in multi-component
molten iron. These equations attribute a linear dependency
of eutectic carbon (Ceut ) or of maximum carbon in the
austenite (Cc ) on the additional third element, in our case
aluminum. With the availability of thermodynamics soft-
ware such as Thermocalc, the effect of additional elements
can be calculated directly. An example of such calculation
is given in Figure 6 for the Fe–C–3%Al system. In this
diagram %Ceut ¼ 4:13, while calculation with Eqn. 3 gives
%Ceut ¼ 3:54. This is a large difference which requires
further analysis. Calculations by the two methods are

International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 13, Issue 3, 2019 539

 Table 2. Chemical Analysis (mass%), Tensile Strength and Hardness Obtained in Each Heat

Heat Composition UTS (MPa) HB

%CE %C %Si %Al %Mn %S %P %Cr %Sn %Cu

2.1–2.2 4.13 3.39 0.62 2.32 0.62 0.110 0.033 0.42 0.120 \ 0.02 339 239
2.3–2.4 4.78 3.30 0.72 5.58 0.66 0.093 0.035 0.47 0.120 \ 0.02 206 256
3.1–3.2 3.75 3.19 0.57 1.55 0.78 0.130 0.024 0.31 0.098 \ 0.02 368 239
3.3–3.4 4.01 3.46 0.67 1.43 0.75 0.110 0.022 0.30 0.100 \ 0.02 334 223
7.1 3.39 3.24 0.12 0.46 0.62 0.078 0.006 0.33 0.073 \ 0.02 xa 420
7.2 3.49 3.24 0.12 0.90 0.62 0.078 0.007 0.33 0.071 \ 0.02 288a 295
a
7.3 3.66 3.32 0.13 1.31 0.61 0.075 0.007 0.33 0.073 \ 0.02 334 246
7.4 3.70 3.25 0.13 1.76 0.61 0.081 0.007 0.33 0.074 \ 0.02 354 245
7.5 3.73 3.20 0.14 2.12 0.62 0.080 0.007 0.34 0.075 \ 0.02 399 244
9.1 3.50 3.14 0.10 1.38 0.57 0.088 0.006 0.34 0.070 \ 0.02 362a 243
9.2 3.55 3.09 0.10 1.84 0.57 0.091 0.005 0.33 0.072 \ 0.02 418 239
9.3 3.76 3.19 0.11 2.33 0.58 0.088 0.006 0.34 0.073 \ 0.02 450 244
9.4 3.72 3.12 0.12 2.46 0.57 0.086 0.006 0.33 0.073 \ 0.02 456 259
9.5 3.82 3.12 0.13 2.92 0.57 0.089 0.006 0.32 0.070 \ 0.02 462 250
9.6 3.84 3.08 0.16 3.15 0.57 0.086 0.007 0.34 0.072 \ 0.02 466 250
11.1 3.95 3.15 0.15 3.32 0.63 0.084 0.008 0.26 0.096 \ 0.02 347 269
11.2 4.05 3.14 0.15 3.84 0.64 0.078 0.006 0.27 0.097 \ 0.02 350 272
11.3 4.12 3.12 0.15 4.25 0.64 0.073 0.008 0.26 0.097 \ 0.02 306 272
11.4 4.26 3.16 0.15 4.72 0.64 0.080 0.010 0.25 0.095 \ 0.02 298 277
11.5 4.26 3.08 0.15 5.07 0.63 0.076 0.009 0.24 0.093 \ 0.02 312 278
11.6 4.32 3.07 0.15 5.40 0.64 0.080 0.011 0.24 0.092 \ 0.02 242 277
12.1 3.64 3.01 0.19 2.50 0.53 0.085 0.010 0.32 0.082 \ 0.02 335 257
12.2 3.76 3.01 0.20 3.02 0.54 0.083 0.009 0.32 0.082 \ 0.02 343 256
12.3 3.83 2.97 0.20 3.53 0.54 0.083 0.011 0.31 0.082 \ 0.02 316 268
12.4 3.91 2.96 0.21 3.94 0.55 0.082 0.011 0.32 0.084 \ 0.02 300 262
12.5 4.01 2.95 0.22 4.44 0.55 0.080 0.008 0.32 0.080 \ 0.02 225 259
12.6 4.11 2.93 0.22 4.96 0.55 0.077 0.010 0.31 0.081 \ 0.02 248 266
13.1 3.66 2.99 0.08 2.85 0.55 0.075 0.011 0.37 0.085 \ 0.02 353 269
13.2 3.88 3.16 0.12 3.01 0.67 0.081 0.008 0.32 0.081 \ 0.02 367 262
13.3 4.04 3.20 0.19 3.45 0.65 0.094 0.009 0.33 0.072 \ 0.02 356 257
13.4 3.98 3.05 0.17 3.88 0.75 0.110 0.008 0.33 0.074 \ 0.02 383 272
17.1 3.85 2.94 0.11 3.87 0.62 0.089 0.010 0.34 0.071 \ 0.02 467 281
17.2 3.84 2.93 0.11 3.87 0.63 0.084 0.011 0.35 0.073 \ 0.02 370 291
17.3 3.82 2.92 0.11 3.84 0.63 0.090 0.012 0.36 0.074 \ 0.02 387 286
17.4 3.82 2.93 0.11 3.80 0.63 0.091 0.010 0.35 0.072 \ 0.02 390 293
17.6 3.84 2.95 0.11 3.79 0.63 0.086 0.012 0.36 0.073 \ 0.02 382 289
17.8 3.84 2.96 0.11 3.75 0.62 0.086 0.010 0.35 0.072 \ 0.02 392 288
17.10 3.80 2.93 0.11 3.68 0.63 0.088 0.011 0.35 0.072 \ 0.02 401 288
17.13 3.80 2.94 0.11 3.65 0.62 0.087 0.012 0.35 0.072 \ 0.02 388 288
17.16 3.83 2.99 0.11 3.57 0.62 0.086 0.013 0.35 0.074 \ 0.02 398 288
17.19 3.81 2.98 0.12 3.48 0.62 0.089 0.013 0.37 0.074 \ 0.02 379 288
18.1 3.70 2.99 0.07 3.07 0.63 0.080 0.008 0.35 0.077 \ 0.02 416 259
30 3.70 3.07 1.95 0.01 0.57 0.091 0.012 0.33 0.072 0.02 268 215
a
Carbides

540 International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 13, Issue 3, 2019

Table 3. Mechanical Properties on Different Thickness influence of aluminum on carbon solubility. On the other
Samples hand, calculations for the maximum carbon solubility in
austenite by the two methods are reasonably close.
Heat Sample Thickness UTS HB Cooling
(mm) (MPa) rate
Differences on graphite distribution are visible while
13.2 A 5.8 341 277 0.73 varying Al content. It is noticeable that at low (Figure 8a)
B 2.5 321 270 0.89 and high (Figure 8c) Al levels, the graphite has more
C 3.5 371 292 0.83 interdendritic orientation, and it is reasonable that UTS
decreases due to this fact. On the contrary, close to the
13.3 A 6.1 431 273 0.73
optimum Al content, the graphite exhibits random orien-
B 2.7 401 266 0.89 tation producing a higher UTS.
C 3.8 444 280 0.83
13.4 A 5.9 474 282 0.73 Effect of Aluminum on Structure
B 2.6 457 278 0.89
C 3.6 487 308 0.83 Al can substitute Si as a graphite promoter. A certain amount
18.1 Y1 12.5 441 274 0.46 of Al (about 1.5%) is necessary to avoid carbide precipitation.
Y2 25 426 262 0.25 When Y2 keel blocks were cast with different Al contents, for
example in heat #9, it was noticeable that only the samples
Y3 50 359 244 0.12
with low %Al (1.38%) showed some carbides (Figure 9). As
the aluminum content is increased, less graphite precipitates
without any associated carbide precipitation.
compared in Figure 7. The change of eutectic carbon is
plotted on the upper part of the graph and that of the All castings alloyed with Al show a pearlitic structure due
austenite carbon in the lower part. A significant discrep- to appropriate levels of Mn, Cr and Sn. In some cases,
ancy is seen between the Thermocalc calculation some ferrite surrounding graphite lamellae can be distin-
(Ceut Thercalc) and calculation with Eqn. 3. (Ceut guished (Figure 10a). When comparing this structure with
m = - 0.21). To closely match the two calculations, it is the one corresponding to the standard gray iron from heat
necessary to alter the value of the solubility factor from #30 (Figure 10b), it can be noticed that a finer pearlite is
m = - 0.21 to m = - 0.1, which implies a twofold lower promoted in Fe–C–Al alloys than in Fe–C–Si irons.

Figure 3. Effect of aluminum content on the tensile strength of all irons cast in
independent Y2 keel blocks; data from heat #9 are shown as squares. (a) All castings.
(b) Castings with C \ 3.1%. (c) Castings with 3.1% \ C \ 3.3%. (d) Castings with
C [ 3.1%.

International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 13, Issue 3, 2019 541

 Figure 4. Effect of carbon and silicon on the ultimate tensile strength: (a) effect of
carbon in Fe–C–Al irons with two levels of Al and in standard Fe–C–Si irons;
(b) effect of silicon and diameter of the cast bar for an Fe–C–1.86%Al iron, after
reference 7.

Figure 5. Effect of Al on the graphite area percentage in the microstructure of

castings from heat #9 and #10: (a) effect of Al on the measured graphite area and
calculated graphite mass; (b) effect of Al on the carbon content of the eutectic and the
austenite, and on the eutectic fraction.

Figure 7. Comparison of eutectic carbon (Ceut ) and

maximum carbon in austenite at the eutectic tempera-
ture (Cc ) obtained from Thermocalc and from Neuman
Figure 6. Fe–C–3%Al system; Thermocalc calculation. linear equations.

542 International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 13, Issue 3, 2019

 Figure 8. Effect of Al on the graphite shape in the microstructure of castings from heats #9 and #11.
(a) 2.46% Al. (b) 3.15% Al. (c) 3.84% Al.
Figure 9. Optical microstructure of a thin plate from heat
#13; sample 9.1 (1.38% Al) at 1009 showing carbides.
Effect of Aluminum on Solidification
Aluminum content produces an increase in the liquidus and
eutectic temperatures, as shown in Figure 11. The data in
Figure 11a were obtained from calculations carried out
with the thermodynamic software Thermocalc.18 Experi-
mental data (Figure 11b) produced from heats that have
similar base composition confirm the calculated trend. It is
also seen that the TL - Teut interval decreases with higher
Al for both calculated and experimental data. The narrower
Figure 10. Pearlite structure at 1009 magnification. (a) Fe–C–Al casting from
sample 9.6. (b) Fe–C–Si casting from heat #30.
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 13, Issue 3, 2019
pre-eutectic solidification interval is expected to result in
less primary austenite, which may drive to a decrease in
UTS values as Al content increases. However, this effect
appears to be outdone by the decrease in graphite content.
The temperature of ferrite formation also increases.
Thickness Sensitivity
The effect of the thickness on the mechanical properties of
Fe–C–Al irons was studied on heats #13 and #18. Three
vertical molds (Figure 2b) were cast from heat #13 at three
different Al contents (3.01, 3.45 and 3.88%). Only one
mold with three keel blocks (Y1, Y2 and Y3) was cast in
heat #18. The influence of the cooling rate on the UTS and
on HB is shown in Figure 12a, b, respectively.
A slight decrease in UTS values is observed for the highest
cooling rate. It may be due to the sanding carried out in
these kinds of samples that may have affected to the
resistant section.
Fe–C–Al iron can be of great interest for castings with thin
sections, as this alloy is not prone to carbides development.
In the present work, plates with thicknesses of about
2.5 mm are free of carbides when Al content is above
2.8%. This alloy triggers to thickness reduction for both
higher mechanical properties and no risk of carbides
precipitation.
543
 Figure 11. Effect of Al on the temperature of formation of the primary austenite and
graphite: (a) Thermocalc calculation; (b) experimental data from Fe–C–Al irons with
2.9–3.2% C, 0.1–0.22% Si, 0.46–5.4% Al (heats # 7, 9, 11, 12, 13).

Figure 12. Effect of cooling rate on the mechanical properties of Fe–C–Al irons:
(a) ultimate tensile strength on plates and on Y-blocks. (b) Brinell hardness on
plates and on Y-blocks.

Effect of Holding Time

The effect of the holding time in the furnace after aluminum

addition was studied on heat #17. In this heat, Al was added at
the beginning of the experiment and independent Y2 keel
blocks were poured directly from the furnace at selected time
intervals up to 90 min. The experimental results are summa-
rized in Figure 13. It can be noticed that Al fading follows a
linear tendency. The average fading rate was 0.0042% Al/min.
There is a sharp decrease in the UTS values from the first
(467 MPa) to the second (370 MPa) sample poured from the
furnace, while after that the tensile strength is not influenced
by a deviation in the Al content (from 3.87 to 3.48%).
Figure 13. Effect of holding time in the furnace on the
The deviation in UTS can be explained by the change of fading of Al and on the tensile strength (heat 17). Linear
the graphite distribution. In sample #17.1, the graphite has trend line for Al.
less interdendritic orientation compared to the other two
samples (Figure 14).
melting furnace. These irons can have tensile strengths
exceeding 450 MPa on standard 25 mm Y-blocks, with
Conclusions average hardness of 250 HB, when random orientation
graphite lamellae are produced. When graphite has inter-
High-strength Fe–C–Al irons can be produced through dendritic distribution, the UTS slightly diminishes till
regular foundry techniques with aluminum addition in the about 400 MPa.

544 International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 13, Issue 3, 2019

 Figure 14. Microstructure of test castings form heat 17 with * 3.3%CE. Magnification 1009;
(a) casting 17.1: 3.87%Al; (b) casting 17.10: 3.68% Al; (c) casting 17.19: 3.48% Al.
The high tensile strength and the low tendency to precip-
itate carbides recommend the use of this alloy for weight
reduction as thin section gray iron castings. However, more
research is needed to obtain consistently random orienta-
tion graphite lamellae.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Diputación
Foral de Bizkaia for supporting this research.
REFERENCES
1. E. Hugony, Le ghise all’aluminio. Caracteristichi,
technologia e aplicazione, La Fonderia Italiana 2,
33–46 (1965)
2. E. Piwowarsky, E. Sohnchen, The effect of aluminum
on cast iron. Metallwirtschaft 12, 417–421 (1933)
3. E.U. Petitbon, J.F. Wallace, Aluminum alloyed gray
iron—properties at room and elevated temperatures.
AFS Cast Met. Res. J. 9, 127 (1973)
4. F. Henke, Heat resistant cast iron. Giess. Prax.
5(72–81), 87–93 (1969)
5. R.P. Walson, Aluminum alloyed cast irons properties
used in design. AFS Trans. 85, 51–58 (1977)
6. C. Defrancq, J. Van Eeghem, A. DeSy, Study of the
inoculation of gray cast irons from the Fe–C–Al sys-
tem; development of a new flake graphite cast iron
with very high strength, in 36th International Foundry
Congress, Belgrade, CIATF (1969)
7. C. Defrancq, J. Van Eeghem, A. DeSy, Further
development of aluminum cast iron inoculated with
high amounts of calcium, in 40th International
Foundry Congress, Moscow, CIATF (1973)
8. J.A. Yaker, L.E. Byrnes, E.H. Petitbon, W.C. Leslie,
Microstructures and strength of aluminum-containing
gray and nodular irons in the temperature range
1200–1800 °F (649–982C). AFS Trans. 84, 305–320
(1976)
International Journal of Metalcasting/Volume 13, Issue 3, 2019
View publication stats
9. D.M. Stefanescu, F. Martinez, Compacted/vermicular
graphite cast irons in the Fe–C–Al system. AFS Trans.
90, 39–46 (1982)
10. F. Martinez, D.M. Stefanescu, Properties of com-
pacted/vermicular graphite cast irons in the Fe–C–Al
system produced by ladle and in-mold treatment. AFS
Trans. 91, 593–606 (1983)
11. D.M. Stefanescu, F. Martinez, Compacted graphite
cast irons in the iron–carbon–aluminum system, U.S.
Patent no. 4,501,612 (1985)
12. H.M. Muhmond, H. Fredriksson, Graphite growth
control analysis in high Al cast iron. Int. J. Cast Met.
Res. 29(5), 272–278 (2016)
13. F. Mampaey, aluminum cast irons: solidification,
feeding and oxygen activities, in AFS Transaction vol.
69, Paper 05-149 (2005)
14. A. Shayesteh-Zeraati, H. Naser-Zoshki, A.R. Kiani-
Rashid, Microstructural and mechanical properties
(hardness) investigations of Al-alloyed ductile cast
iron. J. Alloys Compd. 500, 129–133 (2010)
15. A. Shayesteh-Zeraati, H’ Naser-Zoshki, A.R. Kiani-
Rashid, M.R. Yousef-Sani, The effect of aluminium
content on morphology, size, volume fraction, and
number of graphite nodules in ductile cast iron, in
Proceedings of IMechE, Part L: Journal of Materials:
Design and Applications, vol. 224, pp. 117–122 (2010)
16. F. Neumann, The influence of additional elements on
the physico-chemical behavior of carbon in carbon
saturated molten iron, in Recent Research on Cast
Iron, ed. by H.D. Merchant (Gordon and Breach, NY,
1968), pp. 659–705
17. D.M. Stefanescu, J. Lacaze, Thermodynamics princi-
ples as applied to cast iron, in ASM Handbook, Cast
Iron Science and Technology, ed. by D.M. Stefanescu
(ASM Int., Materials Park, Ohio, 2017), pp. 31–45
18. E. Aguado, M. Ferrer, P. Larrañaga, D.M. Stefanescu,
R. Suárez, The effect of the substitution of silicon by
aluminum on the mechanical properties of gray iron, in
73rd World Foundry Congress, Krakow, Poland
(2018)
545