Status Update: The final report was being written and report- ed in a paper given at CastExpo’10, Phase II has begun. Those wishing further information on the project should contact Prof. Doru Stefanescu, The Ohio State University, at ste- fanescu.1@osu.edu.


Ductile Iron Structure/Property Optimization & Enhancement Phase I (09-10#02)


Coordinator: Stork CRS and AFS Cast Iron Division (5), DIS and Consortium


ASTM A536 contains examples of the yield strength, tensile strength and percent elongation relationships expected in duc- tile cast iron. Frequently, both castings and test bars will ex- hibit mechanical properties that are significantly better than the minimums expected as indicated in the ASTM specification. One example is the information generated by the researchers from testing a pearlitic ductile iron expected to have mechani- cal strength properties that would be consistent with the pearl- itic 80-55-06 grade, but exhibiting high ductility of almost 15% elongation.


To our knowledge, research work has not been conducted to determine what is required to consistently achieve such proper- ties with this extent of ferrite. It is known that strengthening mechanisms in metal include solid solution strengthening with both substitutional and interstitial elements. Work hardening is another means to strengthen metals. Phase transformation, pre- cipitation hardening and grain refinement are still other mecha- nisms utilized to strengthen metals.


This study will characterize the graphite and other factors that control the matrix mechanical properties that are independent of nodule count, size and morphology. The characterization will include tensile and compression testing of sections from example casting and test bars as well as impact testing. The mi- crostructure of the test bars will be evaluated using quantitative metallography. Optical microscopy will be used to determine ferrite grain size. Chemical analysis will also be required. It will be essential to procure castings in this first task that exhibit those properties which both meet as well as exceed the ASTM A536 minimum expectations. The second task will characterize all of the data generated from Task 1 using multiple regression analysis to determine how the different factors interact with the mechanical properties with the intent to isolate those factors that contribute to the high tensile strengths, and yield strengths (and other properties) when the structure is predominantly fer- rite. From these results a determination will be made to go to Phase II, which included DOE tests to reproduce these results.


Status Update: The project has begun and initial updates given to consortium members and steering committee. Since infor- mation on the project is limited at first to the consortium members and then at a later date to AFS Corporate mem- bers, those wishing to participate should contact George Goodrich, Stork CRS, at george.goodrich@us.stork.com.


Effects of Varying SiC Purity on Cuploa Perfor- mance (09-10#03)


Coordinator: Grede and AFS Melting Methods & Materials Division (8)


Nearly eight million tons of cast iron products were produced in the United States in 2007. This required the production of about sixteen million tons of liquid iron. About 60% of the liq- uid iron was generated in cupola furnaces. The major materials charged to the cupola are cast iron and steel. On average, about 50% of the charge is steel, which makes it necessary to add large amounts of silicon alloy to achieve the desired cast iron composition (~2.5% Si). To meet this level of demand, cupolas consumed about 4x105 was oxidized (4x104


large added cost to the foundry ($40x106 waste of energy.


tons of silicon/yr of which about 10% tons of Si). This loss represents not only a /yr), but also a large


The overall goal of this study is to demonstrate the relative ad- vantages and disadvantages of 36% and 65% SiC so as to provide foundries with the information required to optimize the use of SiC at their facilities. The project will involve significant in-kind effort by the foundry conducting the work and the steering com- mittee, with AFS support to fund for slag and off-gas analyses and a consultant to assist with data collection and analysis.


Status Update: The project is just beginning. Those wishing to participate should contact Jim Cree, Grede, at JCree@grede.com.


NISA consortium


The American Foundry Society (AFS) and the National In- dustrial Sand Association (NISA) are in final stages of es- tablishing a multiple institution research consortium to co- ordinate new sand casting technology development efforts towards producing castings with thinner walls and improved dimensional accuracy and repeatability. The consortium will be managed by AFS, including fiscal responsibility, contracts and collection and management of funds, and disbursement to research investigators. Consortium members will approve research projects, determine allocation of funding and ap- point project steering committees to oversee funded projects. NISA will contribute funding for sand related research. Kick off meeting for the consortium is scheduled for summer 2010. For information on the project, contact Scott Lammers, AFS, at 847/824-0181, ext. 228 or scottl@afsinc.org.


International Journal of Metalcasting/Spring 10


83


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89