Skip to main content
Log in

Density change upon solidification of silicon cast irons

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Metalcasting Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Amongst the possible defects that can appear during casting, voids due to solidification shrinkage is certainly the most usual and important in the case of cast irons. For any predicting work, the knowledge of the density of the phases of interest, namely liquid, austenite and graphite, is a prerequisite. The density of liquid and austenite in silicon cast irons are here assessed as function of composition and temperature based on the literature review. Estimate of theoretical expansion upon solidification are then derived for lamellar and spheroidal graphite cast irons and compared to reported experimental values obtained in near-equilibrium conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. Jablonka, K. Harste, K. Schwerdtfeger, Steel Research 62, 24–33 (1991)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. J. Miettinen, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 28, 281–297 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. L.D. Lucas, Mém. Sci. Rev. Métall. 61, 97–116 (1964)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. E.J. Ash, C.M. Saeger, Bureau of Standards J. Res. 8, 601–614 (1932)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. T. Yoshikawa, Mater. Trans. 54, 1968–1974 (2013)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. I. Jimbo, A.W. Cramb, Metall. Trans. B 24, 5–10 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. A. Olsson, Scand. J. Metall. 10, 263–271 (1981)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. C. Dumay, A.W. Cramb, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 26, 173–176 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Y.M. Gertman, P.V. Gel′d, Russian J. Phys. Chem. 36, 788–792 (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  10. N.K. Dzhemilev, S.L. Popel, B.V. Tsarewskiy, Fiz. Metal. Metalloved 18, 83–87 (1964)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Y. Kawai, K. Mori, M. Kishimoto, Tetsu-to-Hagane 60, 29–37 (1974)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. J. Lacaze, O. Dezellus, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 53, 161–177 (2022)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Calculations perfomed with the THERMOCALC software and the TCFE-8 database, https://www.thermocalc.com/

  14. T. Kusakawa, S.Y. Kim, T. Kondo, Report of the Castings Research Laboratory. Waseda Univ. 23, 23–32 (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  15. K. Hellström, L. Diaconu, A. Dioszegi, China Foundry 17, 127–136 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. L.D. Lucas, Mém. Sci. Rev. Métall. 69, 479–492 (1972)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Z.S. Basinski, W. Hume-Rothery, A.L. Sutton, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 229, 459–467 (1955)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. N. Ridley, H. Stuart, Metal Sci. J. 4, 219–222 (1970)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. G.H. Cockett, C.D. Davis, J. Iron Steel Inst., 1963, 110–115

  20. E.W.L. Qiming Chen, O.N. Hansen, Scand. J. Metallurgy 23, 3–8 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  21. P. Dietrich, G. Lesoult, Simulation of heat transfer and capillary feeding during solidification of sand mold S.G. iron castings, In: State of the art of computer simulation of casting and solidification processes, E-MRS Proceedings, vol. 34, pp. 225–235 (1986)

  22. R.W. Heine, AFS Trans. 96, 413–422 (1988)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. M. Hecht, La Santé des Pièces en Fontes à Graphite Sphéroïdal, (ETIF, Sèvres, France, 2008)

  24. C.E. Bates, G.L. Oliver, R.H. McSwain, AFS Trans. 85, 289–298 (1977)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. A. Kagawa, S. Kiguchi, M. Osada, Trans. Jpn. Foundrymen’s Soc. 18, 18–23 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  26. D.M. Stefanescu, M. Moran, S. Boonmee, W.L. Guesser, AFS Trans. 120, 355–364 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  27. J.M. Théret, G. Lesoult, Hommes et Fonderie, February issue, 19–30 (1984)

  28. S.E. Wetterfall, H. Fredriksson, M. Hillert, J. Iron Steel Inst. 210, 323–333 (1972)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. M. Rappaz, J.M. Drezet, M. Gremaud, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 30, 449–455 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. G. Lesoult, Int. J. Cast Metals Res. 22, 2–7 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. E.S. Kweon, D.H. Roh, S.B. Kim, et al., Inter Metalcast 14, 601–609 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40962-020-00417-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. G. Lesoult, M. Castro, J. Lacaze, Acta Mater. 46, 983–995 (1998)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. J. Lacaze, G. Lesoult, M. Castro, Acta Mater. 46, 997–1010 (1998)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. K.M. Pedersen, J.H. Hattel, N. Tiedje, Acta Mater. 54, 5103–5114 (2006)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. M.K. Bjerre, M.A. Azeem, N.S. Tiedje, J. Thorborg, P.D. Lee, J.H. Hattel, Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 26, 085012 (2018)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. G. Rivera, P.R. Calvillo, R. Boeri, Y. Houbaert, J. Sikora, Inter. J. Metalcast. 14(4), 1172 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. U. Tewari et al., Metall. Mater. Trans. B 52B, 633 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. N. Lekakh, X. Zhang, W. Tucker, H.K. Lee, T. Selly, J.D. Schiffbauer, Mater. Charact. 158, 109991 (2019)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Vasile-Lucian Diaconu, Björn Domeij and Attila Dioszegi from JTU University (Sweden) are warmly acknowledged for helping in getting relevant references. We are indebted to the reviewers for their pressure to add some final comments concerning the limits of the idealized model.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacques Lacaze.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Values Selected for Comparing Fe–Si data from Various Works

See Table

Table 2 Reference, Silicon Content, Density Values and Measurement Method

2.

Appendix B

Composition of the Fe-30 at% Si alloy Saturated in Carbon5

In a study dedicated to surface tension of Fe–Si and Fe–Si–C alloys, Yoshikawa used Fe–Si alloys that were then carbon saturated at various temperatures to give Fe–Si–C alloys. In the present work, data for a Fe–Si alloy with 30 at% Si were considered. Carbon saturation of this alloy was carried out in graphite crucibles leading to a change in composition of the melt that was calculated using the TCFE-8 database. The results of these calculations are given in mass percent in Table

Table 3 Composition of Fe-30 at% Si Alloy After Carbon Saturation in Graphite Crucibles, and Experimental and Calculated Values of the Density

3 where are also listed the experimental and calculated values of the density.

Appendix C

Data from Ash and Saeger4

Ash and Saeger measured the specific volume of a series of liquid cast irons and plotted them in their Figure 1. These results have been picked up from their figure and are replotted in Figure

Figure 11
figure 11

Change with temperature of the specific volume of liquid cast irons studied by Ash and Saeger.

11. Some of the melts were duplicates and the corresponding results were given without being differentiated (e.g., alloys III and IV in Figure 11). Table

Table 4 Composition of the Aalloys Studied by Ash and Saeger (wt%)

4 lists the compositions of the alloys studied by Ash and Saeger, selecting, however, only one of the compositions in case of duplicates. In the original figure by Ash and Saeger, lines were drawn through the data that were nearly but not exactly parallel, while the choice was made to plot parallel lines in Figure 11.

As it can be noticed in Table 4, the alloys contained different amounts of phosphorus, suggesting checking the effect of this element as assessed in the main text. The comparison of the densities calculated with Eqn. (13) without the P terms and the experimental ones in Figure

Figure 12
figure 12

Calculated versus experimental density values when P is not accounted for in Eqn. (13). The dashed line is the bisector.

12 shows an agreement that could appear satisfactory, with a difference of less than 1.5%. However, accounting for P gave an agreement at better than 0.7% as seen in Fig.

Figure 13
figure 13

Calculated versus experimental density values when P is accounted for in Eqn. (13). The dashed line is the bisector.

13.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lacaze, J., Sertucha, J. & de la Torre, U. Density change upon solidification of silicon cast irons. Inter Metalcast 17, 1493–1506 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40962-022-00868-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40962-022-00868-9

Keywords

Navigation