BRAKE DRUM PRODUCTION BY CENTRIFUGAL CASTING

by

TIMOTHY CHARLES LEBEAU

ROBIN GRIFFIN, COMMITTEE CHAIR

ALAN DRUSCHITZ
GREGG JANOWSKI

A THESIS

Submitted to the graduate faculty of The University of Alabama at Birmingham,

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

2008
 BRAKE DRUM PRODUCTION BY CENTRIFUGAL CASTING

TIMOTHY CHARLES LEBEAU

MATERIALS ENGINEERING

ABSTRACT

The process of centrifugally casting a gray iron liner onto a steel shell for brake

drum applications was examined through experimental trials and computer simulations.

Casting trials were performed, and pour temperature, iron chemistry, caster spin speed,

and pour time were varied. The drums were machined and rated for the defects present.

Castings were examined microstructurally and defects that originated at the steel-

shell/gray iron interface were found. These defects were formed from an oxide on the

steel shell that reacted with the molten iron to form carbon monoxide. The oxide was

formed on the steel shell surface when it was preheated for one hr in an oxygen-rich

atmosphere. The carbon monoxide gas caused bubbles to form in the solidifying iron and

caused a failure in the steel shell-gray iron bonding layer. Calculations of the gas

evolution rate revealed that the carbon monoxide gas was converted from the iron oxide

for 64 seconds.

A dynamic simulation was developed to examine the pouring and solidification of

the iron, but the long run-times of the model on a desktop computer made it impractical

for studying multiple variables. A static solidification model was developed to examine

the solidification of the casting after the iron was poured. This model showed that, 64

seconds after pouring, some of the iron at the mold-metal interface solidified, which

could entrap the gas and cause defects to form.

The amount of oxide present on the steel shell could be reduced by induction

heating or preheating in an inert atmosphere. The change in heating method would

ii
reduce the time to convert this oxide to approximately 4 seconds. The solidification

model showed that the amount of iron solidified 4 seconds after pouring was small and

the likelihood of defect formation was minimal.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1

2 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................4

Centrifugal Casting ...................................................................................................4

Computer Simulations ..............................................................................................6

3 PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................10

Casting Trials .........................................................................................................10

Analysis of Defects ................................................................................................13
Measuring the Temperature Profile .......................................................................14
Estimating the Temperature of the Shell at the Time of Pouring ..........................14
Computer Simulations ...........................................................................................15
Centrifugal Model .............................................................................................15
Solidification Model .........................................................................................16

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................................19

Casting Trials .........................................................................................................19

Analysis of Defects ................................................................................................23
Calculation of the Rate of Gas Formation .............................................................26
Measuring the Temperature Profile .......................................................................29
Estimating the Temperature of the Shell at the Time of Pouring ..........................30
Computer Simulations ...........................................................................................31
Centrifugal Model .............................................................................................31
Solidification Model .........................................................................................36

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................44

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................47

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Results of the Gray Iron Casting Trials ..........................................................................20

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Fluid unit cell showing all accelerating forces .................................................................7

2 Shell before and after casting ..........................................................................................10

3 Steel shell in the preheat oven ........................................................................................11

4 Pouring the iron liner into the steel shell ........................................................................12

5 Spinning after pouring until the liner is solidified and cooled........................................12

6 Correlation between pouring time and defect rating.......................................................21

7 The relationship between pouring temperature and defect rating in the

gray iron lining casting trial ...........................................................................................21

8 The relationship between carbon equivalent and defect rating in the gray
iron lining casting trial ...................................................................................................22

9 The relationship between caster spin speed and defect rating in the gray
iron lining casting trial ...................................................................................................22

10 Two types of defects on the casting ..............................................................................23

11 Views of the defect seen in 10b ....................................................................................25

12 Section of casting showing a good continuous bond between the iron

and steel shell ................................................................................................................25

13 Microstructure of a good bonding layer between the iron and steel shell ....................26

14 Growth of oxide layer at 600 C ...................................................................................27

15 Time of conversion completion versus preheat time ....................................................28

16 Cooling of the shell as measured from the backside of the shell ..................................30

17 Estimating the temperature of the shell at the time of pouring .....................................31

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

18 Original .STL geometry ................................................................................................32

19 Simplified Geometry used to test the phantom obstacle method ..................................33

20 Temperature contrast of the phantom obstacle model ..................................................35

21 Surface defect concentration contrast of the phantom obstacle model .........................35

22 2-D plot of liquid strain rate after 4 seconds of pouring ...............................................39

23 2-dimensional slice of the casting showing the fraction of solid after 64 seconds .......41

24 Percentage of fully solid shell liner interface length vs. shell temperature
after 64 seconds.............................................................................................................42

25 2-dimensional slice of the casting showing the solidification after 4 seconds .............43

viii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Automotive brake drums are typically manufactured from gray iron using the

sand casting process. One of the advantages of gray iron for this application is the high

thermal conductivity produced by the graphite flake network in the metal. Unfortunately,

this network also produces low toughness, which requires the drum to have thick wall

sections to reduce the stresses created during braking. Any reduction in brake drum

weight will reduce unsprung and rotational mass of the vehicle, which in turn will

significantly improve vehicle performance and fuel economy.

A brake drum that combines the high toughness of steel with the thermal

characteristics of gray iron would allow lower weight designs while maintaining part

performance. A method of making such a drum is to use a formed steel shell with a gray

iron wear surface. The challenge in creating this part is developing a method to make a

uniform iron lining surface that will weld with the steel shell. To achieve this, a

centrifugal casting process was investigated. Centrifugal casting provides a fast cycle

time and a uniform gray iron lining thickness, and adds centripetal force to help with the

joining process. With the centrifugal casting process, increased cooling rates and

directional solidification can lead to a more desirable microstructure, which will

maximize properties.

Another advantage to this process is the flotation of any lower density oxides that

form during pouring to the inner diameter due to the centrifugal force (Janco, 1988).

1
This force pushes the liquid iron outwards onto the shell wall and displaces the lighter

oxide material toward the center of the drum, where it can be machined away after the

casting is complete.

This process has several challenges, however. The steel shells are preheated to

promote the joining process, which is problematic, as the heating of a steel shell in an

atmosphere containing oxygen can cause the formation of iron oxide on the shell surface

(Iordanova, Surtchev, Forcey, & Krastev, 2000). This iron oxide can react with the

molten iron to reduce the oxide by Equation 1.

Fe3O4 + 4C 3Fe + 4CO (1)

The formation of carbon monoxide, CO, gas may result in gas defects at the steel/iron

interface in the resulting casting (Sun & Easman, 2007). In the case of iron-lined steel

brake drums, the bonding surface can be interrupted and the mechanical properties of the

drum adversely affected. Another possible defect is pinholes, which can be caused by

both mold and metal variables, such as variations in carbon content and high hydrogen

levels (Carter, Evans, Harkness, & Wallace 1983).

A manufacturing facility conducted over 40 casting trials to determine the

feasibility of producing an iron /steel brake drum. The quality of the drums was

inconsistent, and the primary causes of rejection were gas holes and delaminations at the

steel/iron interface. This thesis theorizes that an iron oxide layer at the interface is the

primary source of the gas and delamination. This thesis will combine a numerical

simulation of the casting process and calculations of CO gas generation to predict

whether the theory is plausible.

2
 Computer simulations can be an effective tool in investigating defect formation in

the centrifugal casting. Dynamic simulations can examine the flow and fill portion of the

casting process, while a static model can be used to examine the solidification process of

the liquid iron in the steel shell and how it is affected by the pouring temperature and the

shell preheat temperature. These factors determine the time that the liquid iron is in

contact with the steel shell.

The method used to preheat the shell is also important. Time at elevated

temperature and the heating atmosphere affect the thickness of the iron oxide scale on the

shell. The amount of iron oxide present determines the time of gas production and

volume of gas produced. The combinations of CO gas generation and iron solidification

characteristics predict if the gas will be entrapped and cause a defect or escape through

the liquid iron.

Defect analysis of selected drums was used to determine the possible cause of the

defects and where the defects originate. Experimental data was used to verify the

numerical simulation. Computer simulations were then used to determine how the iron

cools and solidifies and how long it takes for a layer of solidified iron to form. The

pouring temperature of the liquid iron, the shell preheat temperature, and the amount of

oxide on the preheated shell, which is dependent upon the time it takes to preheat the

shell, were used to determine the likelihood of defect formation.

3
 CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND

Centrifugal Casting

The centrifugal casting process is widely used in a variety of industrial

applications. Centrifugal casting is a process where liquid metal is poured into a mold

that is spinning, either at the time of casting or immediately following the completion of

the pour. The centrifugal force from the spinning mold forces the metal to solidify with a

directionally solidified microstructure due to conductivity differences between the mold

and the air (Janco, 1998). Typically, the products produced are cylindrical, such as

bearings, ductile iron pipes, and rolls used in the paper and textile industries. These

products are usually made using the horizontal or true centrifugal casting method, where

the rotation occurs about a horizontal axis. The vertical casting method can be used to

make asymmetrical parts, such as valve bodies, jewelry, and dental prosthetics.

Some of the more common challenges to high-production centrifugal casting are

related to turbulent liquid flows due to the high revolutions per minute (RPM) used and

temperature gradients that result in undesirable microstructures. In regards to turbulence,

centrifugal casting will always encounter difficulties because of the physics involved

with the process.

The centrifugal casting process is dominated by centripetal force; centrifugal

forces are not true forces, but this name was adopted and is used to describe the process.

4
Centripetal force, or force acting around an axis toward the center of the axis, is given by

the following relation in Equation 2.

Fc = mv2/r = mr2 (2)

where FC is the centripetal force holding the liquid metal to the mold wall, m is the mass

of the liquid metal, v is the velocity, r is the radius, and is the rotational speed in

radians per second. In order for a droplet of liquid metal to be held to the mold surface by

spinning force alone, the centripetal force must be greater than the force of gravity acting

on the liquid, as derived in Equation 3.

Fc > Fg

r2 > 386.2 ins2

> (386.2r)1/2 (3)

This gives a minimal rotational speed, which prevents raining of liquid iron during

casting liquid droplets falling from the mold wall. When converted to linear velocity on

the mold wall for a 16.5-inch diameter brake drum, the liquid velocity is much greater

than the 0.5-m/s threshold velocity for free surface envelopment, as derived by John

Campbell, and is thus a very turbulent flow (Campbell, 1991). The turbulent flow of the

liquid metal can introduce new defects due to the entrainment of air and unwanted

byproducts, such as slag or refractory from the ladle or furnace.

Large temperature gradients can form in the molten metal during the casting

process. These gradients can be affected by many different variables, such as mold

irregularities, irregular mold coatings, improper mold preheating, and turbulent flow. A

quick one-dimensional thermal analysis (Incropera & DeWitt, 1990) of a droplet of metal

5
on the mold surface shows that liquid on the mold surface freezes instantaneously, but

liquid just a few microns into the metal does not freeze for more than one second. The

very thin layer of metal that solidifies can trap gas produced by mold-metal reactions and

accumulate until a bubble forms and breaks through this layer and causes defects to form

in the still mushy metal. Defects can also be amplified due to the turbulent fluid flow and

irregular mold coating, which cause severe thermal gradients on the scale of a few

hundred degrees within a few inches.

Computer Simulations

Computer simulations of casting processes have been successfully used for years

to predict, reduce, and/or eliminate defects in static castings. Simulating the centrifugal

casting process requires additional computational power to deal with the high metal

velocities. With advances in computer technology, simulating the centrifugal casting

process is now possible. Flow-3D, produced by Flow Science, Inc., is a commercial

program that uses computational fluid dynamics to simulate metal flow in a mold. This

method uses standard flow equations that are solved for each individual computational

cell. This program can solve physical models to predict solidification rate, turbulence, air

entrainment, and other variables that can lead to defects in castings.

The governing equations for dynamic free-surface fluid flow have been available

for nearly a century, but computer simulation of dynamic free-surface fluid flow has been

technically feasible only for the past decade. Figure 1 shows an infinitesimal volume cell

within a fluid with all of the accelerating forces present.

6
 y
y y + dy
y

yx
yx + dy
y
yz
yz + dy
y

z
xy
xy + dx
x
xz zx x
x + dx
xz x
x zy xz + dx
x
zy
xy zy + dz
z
zx
zx + dz
z

x
z yz
z + dz
z
yx

z y

Figure 1. Fluid unit cell showing all accelerating forces. (FlowScience, Inc., 2007).

The mass of liquid that moves into and out of the control volume shown in Figure

1 is governed by a mass balance equation.

VF p uA x vA y wA z RSOR
+ + + =
c 2 t x y z
(4)

where VF is the fractional volume open to flow; is the fluid density; c is the speed of

sound in the liquid; p is the pressure; u, v, and w are the component velocities in each of

the cardinal directions; Ax, Ay, and Az are the areas open to flow in each of the cardinal

directions; and RSOR is a density source with no momentum (FlowScience, Inc., 2007).

7
This equation, in simple terms, is equivalent to counting the population in one region

during one moment in time it is a function of the current regional population (the first

term in Equation 4), the rate of immigration and emigration (terms 2-4 in Equation 4),

and the number of people that are born and the number that die (the right side of Equation

4). In terms of the centrifugal casting process, the first term of the equation is the

compressibility of the fluid, which does not affect this process since the liquid iron is

incompressible. The second through fourth terms describe the volume flow of the liquid

metal in terms of the three directions of the unit cell. The right side of the equation is any

mass created within the cell that does not occur during the basic model but comes into

play when the iron oxide on the steel shell surface forms carbon monoxide.

The mass balance equation must be solved simultaneously with the Navier-Stokes

equations of momentum in order to fully describe the liquid being simulated. This is

given in equation 5.

u 1 u u u 1 p RSOR
+ uA x + vA y + wA z = G x + f x bx u
t VF x y z x VF
(5)

where Gx is a body acceleration, x is viscous acceleration, and bx is flow loss through

porous media (FlowScience, Inc., 2007). There is a similar equation for momentum in

the y- and z-directions, as well. In simpler form, and to further extend the previous

metaphor, the Navier-Stokes relationship describes the forces that make people move in a

particular region at a particular moment in time. The geography (the first term in

Equation 5), transportation speeds (the second term in Equation 5), and environmental

factors (the right side of Equation 5) all cause the masses to move in a particular

direction. In terms of fluid flow, the right side of the equation describes the unexpected

or uncontrollable events such as gravity and viscous acceleration of the fluid. Gx is the

8
gravity and the centrifugal force of the shell spinning. Viscosity forces that can cause

shear forces as the viscosity increases in the fluid are represented by the fx term. The third

term on the right side is the compressibility term, and bx is flow through a porous media,

which does not affect this particular model. The last term on the right side is the source

term that describes any mass created or destroyed within the unit cell. The first term on

the left side describes a geometry that causes high acceleration, such as a nozzle or a

weir. The rest of the left side describes the movement of the liquid due to the spinning of

the shell.

Simulation of centrifugal casting adds another level of complexity in that both

mass conservation and accelerations occur on a wall that has non-zero momentum. The

spinning mold adds an additional traction to the right side of Equation 5 (GX) and makes

tracking fluid momentum more difficult because of the relatively high mold speeds.

In simulating castings that use heated permanent molds, there may be a need to

account for mold surface reagents that can produce gas upon contact with the liquid metal

stream. This phenomenon can be simulated by the proper manipulation of the basic flow

approximation equations. Mold temperatures are governed by the general heat flow, as in

Equation 6.

T
(1 VF ) w C w Tw
t



x k w (1 A x )
T
x
y
( )
k w 1 A y
y


z k w (1 A z )
T
z
= TSOR
(6)

where w, Cw, kw, and Tw are solid material values for density, specific heat capacity,

thermal conductivity, and temperature, respectively, and TSOR is an energy source term

due to liquid-solid heat transfer and external heat sources (FlowScience, Inc., 2007)

TSOR would also include all heat energy input from phase transformations and radiative

heat transfer from the liquid.

9
 CHAPTER 3

PROCEDURE

Casting Trials

The drums produced consisted of a 419-mm diameter by 178-mm-wide steel shell

and a gray iron liner that was centrifugally cast onto the shell to obtain a bond by

diffusion at the steel/iron interface. The thickness of the steel shell is approximately 5

mm, while the gray iron liner is approximately 19 mm. Figure 2 shows the drawings of

the steel shell before and after the gray iron liner was cast.

Figure 1. Shell before and after casting. Drawings of the steel shell before (on the left) and after the gray
iron liner is cast (on the right).

At a local foundry, trials were performed in order to investigate four parameters:

pouring speed (tilting speed of the ladle), pouring temperature (temperature was

measured in the transfer ladle before pouring the iron into the pouring ladle), chemistry

of the iron, and casting speed (rotational speed of shell).

A hot alkaline wash was applied to the shells in order to remove any residual oil

from machining. Then the shells were cold rinsed and dipped in a heated solution of a

10
flux, borax pentahydrate at 82 C to help with the bonding of the iron to the steel shell

and to minimize the oxidation that occurs during the preheating process. The shells were

then placed in an oven at 677 C for an hour to preheat the shell before casting, as seen in

Figure 3.

Figure 3. Steel shell in the preheat oven.

A heat of iron was produced by charging an induction melting furnace with scrap

steel and alloys, then heating until melted. When the heat was brought to tapping

temperature, a thermal arrest cup was poured to measure the carbon equivalent, and the

chemistry was adjusted as needed. The iron was brought back up to tapping temperature

and poured into a pocket ladle in order to inoculate the gray iron. The shell was then

taken out of the oven and placed in the casting spinner while the iron was transferred to

the pouring ladle. Once the shell was secure and brought to the desired rotational speed,

the pouring ladle was rotated into the shell and the pour began. The ladle was rotated

manually for 410 seconds, according to the predetermined matrix. The ladle was then

rotated out of the shell, and the shell continued to spin until the metal was fully solidified

11
and cooled. The shell was then removed for examination. Figure 4 shows the pouring of

the iron, and Figure 5 shows the spinning after the ladle is rotated away.

Figure 4. Pouring the iron liner into the steel shell.

Figure 5. Shell spinning after pouring until the liner is solidified and cooled.

The cast brake liners were machined, and the surface was examined for defects

according to an established standard. This was a visible inspection, and the defects were

12
classified as light or heavy, depending on the depth of the defect. The rating system was

a qualitative system that rated each machined casting from 1.0 to 4.0.

1.0 - no defects visible.

1.1 to 1.9 - light defects seen (less than 3 defects to be considered a sound

casting).

2.0 to 2.9 - heavy defects in a localized area.

3.0 to 4.0 heavy defects uniform throughout the surface.

Any casting rated 2.0 or above was considered not acceptable. When defects

were present, the drums were sectioned through the defect to see the depth of the defect,

but no ratings were made on these sections. Conditions of the casting were recorded for

each trial. Temperatures were taken using immersion thermocouples, pour times were

measured manually, and carbon concentration was measured using a carbon/sulfur

analyzer, while the silicon concentration was measured using a spectrometer. Carbon

equivalent (carbon + 1/3 silicon), liquidus [1669-(124 x % carbon)-(% silicon x 31)] x 1.8

+ 32), and solidus [(79.4287- % silicon)/0.0694901] x 1.8 + 32 were calculated.

Analysis of Defects

Drum sections containing surface defects were further examined to determine

defect causes. These sections were first examined macroscopically and photographed

before being further sectioned. These sections were mounted, ground, and polished and

examined under a light microscope. The samples were etched with Nital (4% nitric acid

in methanol) etchant, and the gas defects were examined to determine whether the defects

were caused by carbon monoxide gas or hydrogen gas. A graphite lining would be

13
present if the defects were caused by hydrogen, while a defect caused by the carbon

monoxide gas would have no graphite lining present (Carter et al., 1989).

Measuring the Temperature Profile

Temperature measurements were taken to determine the cooling behavior of the

shell after the pouring event. Measurements were taken using a fiber optic non-contact

temperature system (Williamson model number PRO 91-65) aimed at the backside of the

shell from the time of the pour and continued for 5 min of cooling time after the pour was

completed. This system is a dual-wavelength infrared thermometer that collects infrared

energy optically and uses this energy to calculate the target surface temperature. The

instrument used was rated for work in the 871C 1760C range. Temperatures were

recorded every 10 seconds manually and every second using a DaqBook data acquisition

system. Calibration of the thermometer was verified by measuring molten iron in an

induction furnace and referenced using temperatures recorded with an immersion

thermocouple.

Estimating the Temperature of the Shell at the Time of Pouring

From experimental observation, the time from removal of the preheated shell

from the oven to pouring into the shell was 80 seconds. The shell was preheated for 1 hr

in a furnace at 677C, but the shell cooled in the 80 seconds between removal of the shell

from the furnace and the pour. To estimate shell temperature at the time of pouring, the

cooling rate of a 5-mm steel plate (the thickness of the steel shell) was measured. First, a

furnace was preheated to 677C. While the furnace was heating, the steel plates were

14
prepared by coating two thermocouples with boron nitride (Lubricoat-ZV) and spot

welding the thermocouples to the steel plate. The coating was used to protect the

insulation on the thermocouples from the high temperature of the furnace. The plates

were then placed in the oven and allowed to reach temperature for 30 min, then taken out

of the oven and allowed to cool in air at room temperature. A DaqView data acquisition

system was used to record the temperatures.

Computer Simulations

Centrifugal Model

A model of the centrifugal casting of a gray iron drum was developed using Flow-

3D by FlowScience Inc. The physical models that were implemented within Flow-3D

were heat transfer, solidification, viscosity, turbulence, surface tension, and such scalars

as air entrainment, velocity of the liquid metal, and surface defect tracking. Heat transfer

was determined with the inclusion of heat transfer between the fluid and shell, and the

conduction of the shell and fluid to the surrounding atmosphere. Solidification was

modeled in this program as resistance to flow. For low solid fractions, the viscosity was

a function of the solid fraction, but at solid fractions larger than the coherent solid

fraction, a DArcy type drag force was implemented with a drag coefficient proportional

to the solid fraction. The coherent solid fraction is where the amount of liquid solidified

is large enough to form a coherent structure. The DArcy-type drag force was calculated

by adding a term to the right side of the Navier-Stokes equation (equation 5). When the

solid fraction reached the point of rigidity, the drag became infinite, and there could be

no fluid flow.

15
 Viscosity and turbulence were evaluated as a sum of assigned constant molecular

values for both the viscosity and turbulence for the fluid as well as a function of solid

fraction. Surface tension was applied in Flow 3D by the amount of free surface area in

the unit cell. If the volume fraction of the unit cell was one or zero, no surface tension

was applied. If the volume of the cell was between one and zero, the pressure of the

surface tension was applied toward the direction of the unit cell where there was more

liquid present and away from the direction of the unit cell where there was no liquid

present.

Air entrainment is a scalar, a quantity possessing only a magnitude, which was

calculated within the code of the program when the turbulence was sufficient to disturb

the surface enough to allow air into the fluid. Entraining air is undesirable and may lead

to defects within the casting.

The velocity magnitude of the liquid metal was tracked as it moved through each

unit cell. Velocity magnitude is an important variable, as it is part of the Navier-Stokes

and mass balance equations and also relates to turbulence in the casting process.

The surface defect tracking model records the time that a volume of liquid metal

is exposed to the air. This gives an oxide formation level that can be used to predict the

possibility and location of oxide related defects (FlowScience, Inc., 2007).

Solidification Model

In order to examine the thermal properties of the iron and steel shell and the effect

they have on solidification, a solidification model was developed. The cooling

environment was important to examine due to its impact on the entrapment of gas. This

16
model was built axisymmetrically to examine a 30 slice of the casting in order to make

run-times shorter. This model was static, since the force from the spinning of the casting

was greater than the force due to gravity and should force the iron to stay against the

mold wall as soon as the mold was filled. The centrifugal model confirmed that the

centrifugal force was greater than the force due to gravity, since once the pouring was

complete and the shell was filled, the motion of the fluid within the shell was minimal.

The goal of the solidification model was to determine how long the fluid was in the liquid

state and was verified by matching the cooling curve of the model to the experimental

cooling curve.

One of the problems encountered in building this model was the variation in the

data for thermal properties of gray iron. Thermal properties from a review by Pehlke

(1982) yielded the closest match to the experimental curve. Using the Pehlke thermal

properties data, models were run to examine the solidification time as a function of two

variables: temperature of the liquid and temperature of the shell. This data was then

analyzed against the rate of gas formation data to determine the probability of defects

caused by gas forming on the surface of the shell.

To study the range of possible conditions for the casting, two different pouring

temperatures (1316 C and 1482 C) and two different shell preheat temperatures (510 C

and 677 C) were used. The temperatures were selected as best case (1482 C and 677

C) and typical conditions (1316 C and 510 C) that may be seen for the two variable

factors. In Flow3D, history points are points selected by the user to collect data, such as

temperature, pressure, and fluid fraction, in a specific location. Data collection points

were included in the model at the outer diameter of the shell and also at three equally

17
spaced points through the thickness of the liquid. The point on the outer diameter of the

shell was used in order to compare against the experimental while the points spaced

through the thickness of the liquid were used to determine the temperature of the iron.

18
 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Casting Trials

After each drum lining was cast, the inside diameter of the casting was machined

and examined for defects. Each casting was then rated to determine if the casting was

acceptable. The rating system was from 1.0 to 4.0. If the casting was determined to be

unacceptable (2.04.0), the casting was sectioned through the defects and further

examined. The results of the gray iron lining casting trial can be seen in Table 1.

Almost all of the defects seen were identified as gas defects. Although not all

conditions were recorded for each drum produced, there was a single significant

statistical correlation found within the results. The biggest factor in casting an acceptable

part was casting pouring speed. The shorter pour time of 4 seconds resulted in more

acceptable castings than the longer pour time of 10 seconds. It is possible that the shorter

pour time resulted in more turbulent pouring and thus more entrainment and reoxidation

defects that can break down to form more gaseous defects. This correlation can be seen

in Figure 6.

All other factors examined, including tap temperature, turning speed, temperature

in the transfer ladle before pouring, carbon equivalent (carbon content plus one third the

silicon content), carbon concentration, and silicon concentration, did not show a

statistically significant correlation with the defect rating. Typical results for transfer ladle

temperature, carbon equivalent, and caster spin speed are shown in Figures 79.

19
Table 1

Results from the gray iron casting trials.

the Transfer Ladle

Equivalent (wt %)
Tap Temperature

Temperature in
Turning Speed

Defect Rating
Pour Time (s)

Liquidus (C)

Solidus (C)
Si (wt %)
C (wt %)
Material

Carbon
(RPM)

(C)
(C)
4 GI 2 3.790 1.870 1583 1419 4.413 1141 1116
4 GI 2 3.790 1.870 1583 1419 4.413 1141 1116
4 GI 4 3.790 1.870 1583 1419 4.413 1141 1116
4 GI 3 3.790 1.870 1583 1419 4.413 1141 1116
4 GI 3 3.697 1.890 1581 1444 4.327 1152 1115
4 GI 2 3.697 1.890 1581 1444 4.327 1152 1115
4 GI 2 3.697 1.890 1583 1444 4.327 1152 1115
4 GI 2 3.697 1.890 1583 1444 4.327 1152 1115
350 GI 4 3.500 2.060 1599 1412 4.187 1171 1113
420 GI 3 3.500 2.060 1599 1412 4.187 1171 1113
350 GI 3 3.500 2.060 1611 1459 4.187 1171 1113
420 GI 3 3.500 2.060 1611 1459 4.187 1171 1113
350 GI 1.5 3.470 2.300 1598 1442 4.237 1167 1110
420 GI 4 3.470 2.300 1598 1442 4.237 1167 1110
350 GI 3 3.470 2.300 1602 1416 4.237 1167 1110
420 GI 3 3.470 2.300 1602 1416 4.237 1167 1110
550 GI 1.5 3.412 2.230 1599 1461 4.155 1177 1111
420 GI 3 3.412 2.230 1599 1461 4.155 1177 1111
550 GI 3 3.412 2.230 1614 1441 4.155 1177 1111
420 GI 3 3.412 2.230 1614 1441 4.155 1177 1111
550 GI 1.5 3.480 2.230 1603 1441 4.223 1168 1111
420 GI 3 3.480 2.230 1603 1441 4.223 1168 1111
550 GI 3 3.480 2.230 1610 1442 4.223 1168 1111
420 GI 4 3.480 2.230 1610 1442 4.223 1168 1111
10 GI 3 3.509 2.250 1598 1448 4.259 1164 1111
10 GI 3 3.509 2.250 1598 1448 4.259 1164 1111
10 GI 1.5 3.509 2.250 1594 1494 4.259 1164 1111
10 GI 1 3.515 2.210 1602 1451 4.252 1164 1111
10 GI 1 3.515 2.210 1602 1451 4.252 1164 1111
10 GI 1 3.515 2.210 1599 1488 4.252 1164 1111
10 GI 1.5 3.515 2.210 1599 1488 4.252 1164 1111
10 GI 1 3.550 2.280 1598 1349 4.310 1158 1110
10 GI 1.5 3.550 2.280 1598 1349 4.310 1158 1110
10 GI 1.2 3.550 2.280 1597 1491 4.310 1158 1110
10 GI 1 3.550 2.280 1597 1491 4.310 1158 1110
10 GI 1.2 3.535 2.210 1597 1373 4.272 1162 1111
10 GI 1.2 3.535 2.210 1597 1373 4.272 1162 1111
10 GI 1.5 3.535 2.210 1597 1373 4.272 1162 1111
10 GI 1.5 3.535 2.210 1597 1373 4.272 1162 1111

20
 4.0

3.5

3.0
Quality Rating

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Pour Time (seconds)

Figure 6. Correlation between pouring time and defect rating. H pouring time was ten seconds to
complete the pour while L was four seconds. A defect rating over two is deemed as unacceptable.

4.0

3.5

3.0
Defect Rating

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
2400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750
Temperature in the Transfer Ladle

Figure 7. The relationship between pouring temperature and defect rating in the gray iron lining casting
trial. This shows no direct relationship between pouring temperature and the likelihood of defect
occurrence.

21
 4.0

3.5

3.0
Defect Rating

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
4.10 4.15 4.20 4.25 4.30 4.35 4.40 4.45
Carbon Equivalent

Figure 8. The relationship between carbon equivalent and defect rating in the gray iron lining casting trial.
This shows no direct relationship between carbon equivalent and the likelihood of defect occurrence.

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
Defect Rating

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Caster Spin Speed

Figure 9. The relationship between caster spin speed and defect rating in the gray iron lining casting trial.
This shows no direct relationship between carbon equivalent and the likelihood of defect occurrence.

The transfer ladle temperature and spinning speed were expected to have an effect on the

occurrence of defects in the casting, but the data did not reveal any correlation. However,

22
the transfer ladle temperature was probably not a good indication of the actual pouring

temperature. There were two pouring stations, and the pouring ladle from each station

was filled from a single transfer ladle, but the temperature was only taken before the first

pouring ladle was filled. The metal in the second pouring ladle would be at a lower

temperature, as the transfer ladle sat unheated during the first pour. In addition, as the

pouring ladles were not preheated well, the actual metal pouring temperature could be

significantly lower than that measured in the transfer ladle.

Analysis of Defects

Sections of drums that had been rejected due to the presence of surface defects

were analyzed to investigate the cause of the defects. There were two areas where the

defects occurred: on the inside diameter of the drum and on the interface between the

steel shell and the iron lining. Examples of these defects can be seen in Figure 10.

(a) (b)

Figure 10. Two types of defects on the casting. Photographs showing defects on the inside diameter of the
casting (a) (2X) and on the steel-iron interface (b) (1.5X)

The defects present on the inside diameter of the casting could come from several

possible sources. This defect could be the result of oxidation of the iron during pouring

or from the inclusion of slag material from the melt. The material could be trapped in the

23
fluid and cause oxidation as the fluid solidifies. The centrifugal force should displace

this material to the inside diameter of the casting where it can be machined away, unless

the metal solidifies too quickly or the turbulence causes the defect to be entrapped.

Another possible cause of the defect present at the inside diameter of the casting

is the creation of gas from the fluid-mold interaction. The conditions in which the shells

are preheated cause iron oxide scale to form on the surface. When the liquid iron comes

in contact with this oxide, the carbon reacts with the oxide and is reduced to iron and

carbon monoxide gas. If the iron freezes before the gas can travel through the liquid by

virtue of the centrifugal force, defects are seen at the inside diameter of the casting, either

in the as-cast condition or as the material is machined away.

The gas created at the mold-metal interface can result in a poor bond between the

iron and steel, and gas defects can form as the gas travels through the fluid and is trapped

if the liquid freezes too quickly. The preheated shell and the liquid iron were at elevated

temperatures for a period of time to allow diffusion to take place and the bond to form.

Figure 11 shows a bond that was disrupted due to the presence of gas. Figure 11a shows

the surfaces of the iron (on the left) and the steel shell (on the right) and the gap in the

interface from the presence of the gas. Figure 11b shows the two materials as they would

be in the as cast condition with a gas bubble extending into the iron. Figure 11c is a

polished section of the defect. When there was no gas present or the gas was allowed to

escape through the molten iron, a good, continuous bond was created. A good section of

the casting can be seen in Figure 12.

24
 Iron Steel

Iron Steel

(a) (b)

Iron
Steel

(c)

Figure 11. Views of the defect seen in 10b. (a)(2X) is the two pieces separated, showing the defected
bonding layer. (b)(4X) are the two pieces put back together showing a gas defect that is seen polished and
magnified in (c)(20X).

Figure 12. Section of casting showing a good continuous bond between the iron and steel shell. (1X)

25
 The microstructure of the bond between the iron and the steel shell showed a

sharp layer separating the two materials, with a diffusion layer into the steel shell from

the molten iron being poured onto the shell. This microstructure can be seen in Figure

13.

Figure 13. Microstructure of a good bonding layer between the iron and steel shell. (40X)

Calculation of the rate of gas formation

When steel is preheated at high temperatures for an extended period in an

atmosphere containing oxygen, the dominant oxide layer, Fe3O4, grows to a thickness of

about 15 microns (Ioranova et al., 2000). The growth of the oxide on low carbon steel at

600 C according to Ioranova et al., can be seen in Figure 14. Figure 14 shows that, at

600 C (the shells are preheated at 677 C), the oxide layer will grow to about 15 m

after 60 min in an atmosphere containing oxygen. This layer could be reduced by heating

in an inert atmosphere or, as the figure shows, reducing the time that the steel shell is

preheated. If the shells were preheated using an induction furnace, the time it takes the

shell to reach the desired temperature would be reduced, which would reduce the amount

of oxide present on the shell.

26
 16

14
y = 4.52505Ln(x) - 3.48248
R2 = 0.99807
12
Oxide Thickness (m)

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (min)

Figure 14. Growth of oxide layer at 600 C. Results of a study of high temperature oxidation of steel by
Ioranova et al. with curve fitted to data points.

Using the known oxide layer thickness of 15 m, the density of the oxide (5.4

g/cm3), and molecular weight of the oxide, the total amount of Fe3O4 present was

calculated. The Fe3O4 is reduced by the carbon in solution to form iron plus carbon

monoxide gas, as shown in Equation 1.

Fe3O4 + 4C 3Fe + 4CO (1)

Using the calculated amount of Fe3O4, the amount of CO that is formed can be

calculated. The rate of gas formation was calculated from the Arrhenius dependence as

seen in Equation 7:

Q
Rate = k exp (7)
RT

where k is the rate constant (approximately 1x10-7 from reference 3), Q is the total energy

for the reaction in equation 1 (Perry, Green, & Maloney, 1997), R is the universal gas

27
constant, and T is the temperature in Kelvin. The rate of gas formation was calculated to

be 0.0136 cm3/cm2/s from previous calculations. This rate was then used to calculate the

total time of gas evolution, depending upon the thickness of the oxide on the shell.

The amount of gas that evolved was dependent upon the total amount of oxide

present on the surface. The amount of oxide present on the shell was dependent upon the

time that the steel is heated in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, which is displayed in Figure

14. Since the amount of oxide present determines the total amount of gas evolved and

the time that it takes to evolve all of the gas, a relationship can be made between the time

it will take to preheat the shell and the time it will take to convert all of the oxide present

into the gas. This relationship can be seen in Figure 15.

70

65
Time for Conversion Completion (seconds)

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Pre-Heat Time (minutes)

Figure 15. Time of conversion completion versus pre-heat time. The relationship between the time the
shell is preheated in an oxygen rich atmosphere and the time it will take to convert all of the oxide present.

This relationship shows that when the shell was preheated in an oxygen rich

atmosphere for 1 hr, it took more than 60 seconds to convert all of the oxide present on

28
the surface. With both the rate and total CO gas formed calculated, the time for

completion was calculated to be 64 seconds, meaning that the gas can continuously form

for 64 seconds or until the metal is solidified. The formation of the CO gas can be a

major source of defects for an iron pour into a steel mold preheated at a high temperature.

Measuring the Temperature Profile

Measurements were taken showing the heating and cooling of the shell during the

pouring process. The shell was at approximately 510 C when the metal was poured.

The metal was poured between 1316 C and 1482 C, so there was an initial heating of

the shell while the metal was being poured. Once the pouring event was over, the cooling

began and the spinning continued for at least 3 min, until the temperature was below the

liquidus of the iron and the metal was solidified. The cooling of the shell was measured

from the backside of the shell with an infrared thermometer and can be seen in Figure 16.

On this pour, the temperature was 1533 C in the transfer ladle and was taken

using an immersion thermocouple. There was a heat loss as the metal was transferred to

the pouring ladle, since the ladle could not be sufficiently preheated in this setup. The

bearings used in the rotating arm would seize up when the ladle was preheated

thoroughly, and the ladle could not be rotated to pour the iron into the shell. This graph

shows the temperature on the backside of the shell, so it is lower than the temperature of

the liquid iron. The infrared thermometer used had a range of 871 C 1760 C, so

temperatures could not be measured below 871 C, which is not important, since the

casting is removed once it reaches that temperature. Figure 16 shows the initial heating

of the shell due to the presence of the molten iron and the subsequent cooling. The initial

29
slope of the curve was steep and then leveled off as the iron reached the liquidus

temperature and began to solidify. Then the temperature began to drop more quickly

again until the solidus was reached and the slope leveled out again. Finally, the casting

cooled in a more uniform fashion below the solidus.

1200

1150

1100
Temperature (C)

1050

1000

950

900

850

800
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Time (s)

Figure 16. Cooling of the shell as measured from the backside of the shell.

Estimating the Temperature of the Shell at the Time of Pouring

To determine the temperature of the shell when the iron is poured, the cooling of a

5-mm steel plate (approximate thickness of the steel shell used in the process) was

observed. It took approximately 80 seconds to remove the shell from the furnace, place it

in the spinner, and begin to pour the iron into the shell. Temperatures were recorded

using DaqView data acquisition software and the results can be seen in Figure 17.

30
 700
Plates taken out of furnace
675

650

625
Temperature (F)

600

575

550

525
When iron would be poured

500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)

Figure 17. Estimating the temperature of the shell at the time of pouring. The cooling of two 5mm plates
(approximate thickness of the steel shell used in the process) from the preheat temperature of 677 C.

From these results, it was predicted that the shell temperature would drop about 300 C in

80 seconds, from 677 C to 510 C. This temperature was used as an input in the

simulation for the shell temperature at the time of pouring.

Computer Simulations

Centrifugal Model

Preliminary simulations for the casting problem used the General Moving Object

model in Flow3D. The General Moving Object model rotates the geometry used (a .STL

drawing file) through the computational mesh and applies the physical models to the

geometry. The complex geometry of the mold and the high velocity used to spin the

16.5-inch mold at 400 to 600 RPM resulted in run times of over a month on the desktop

31
computers. The general moving object model setup did not fully resolve the part as

shown in Figure 18, even with a very fine mesh size, causing inaccuracies in the

simulation.

Figure 18. Original .STL geometry. .STL geometry used for the general moving object model showing
poor resolution even with a very fine mesh. The white triangles are parts of the geometry that are not
resolved.

A different method was used in order to decrease run times on the desktop computers a

method known as the Phantom Obstacle model. The Phantom Obstacle model defines a

region to apply an axial velocity but does not give the region a volume or any real

obstacle blocking effects (FlowScience, Inc., 2007), allowing for less computational load

and a geometry that is more easily resolved. The Phantom Obstacle model can still have

all of the previous physical models applied to it and run on a desktop computer.

Unfortunately, imported .STL geometry cannot be used for this model, so the geometry

had to be created within Flow-3D. The first model tested was a simple cylinder that can

be seen in Figure 19.

32
Figure 19. Simplified geometry used to test the phantom obstacle method.

With this method, the part was fully resolved and run times were reduced to 3 to 4 weeks

depending upon the input variables used e.g., pouring temperature, pouring speed, and

caster spin speed. Figure 20 is a series of two-dimensional slices through the center of

the casting and pouring ladle with the fluid colored by temperature in Kelvin. The initial

temperature of metal in the pouring ladle was 1760 K (1487 C), the shell was 783 K

(510 C), and the RPM was 550. After one second of pouring, the liquid being poured on

the shell was disorganized, with droplets raining from the shell surface and no significant

amount of cooling of the liquid, even though the cooling rate should be maximized at this

time. The liquid was still at the pouring temperature of 1482 C, and there was no

immediate chill effect from the contact with the shell. The raining phenomenon can also

lead to oxidation, since the liquid iron will be exposed to oxygen as the small droplets

solidify quickly.

33
 At 2 seconds, the liquid started to form a layer inside the shell, although there was

still a large unfilled section. There was some raining seen, although it was drastically

reduced with the establishment of the liquid layer. After 3 seconds, there was a

continuous layer of liquid on all parts of the shell, but it was also clear that the layer

thickness was not uniform, which might make the thickness of the solidified iron uneven

around the shell. Also of note is how fast cooling began once a liquid layer was

established. This is evident by the liquid on the shell for a full rotation being at around

1427 C while the oncoming liquid was at 1482 C. Also, the liquid being poured onto

the shell was hot enough to reheat preexisting liquid, which further delayed solidification.

At the end of the pouring cycle, none of the liquid was near the liquidus of 1410 K

(1138 C), and the thickness was still very uneven around the shell. Experimental

observations show that, with these pouring conditions, the casting was not fully solidified

until at least 3 min after pouring. The simulation could not be run for this length of time

due to the long run times and a large results file.

The Surface Defect Tracking model records the relative amount of time a volume

of liquid metal is exposed to the air (FlowScience, Inc., 2007). Figure 21 shows 2-D

plots of the predicted surface defect locations during the pour. As shown in Figure 21a,

liquid in the ladle had already formed a large amount of oxidation products on the

surface, and these oxides flowed into the shell mold and were incorporated into the

liquid. This is even more evident after 4 seconds, as shown in Figure 21b, where the

liquid oxides were significantly thicker, which means that the last liquid poured was the

most contaminated.

34
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 20. Temperature contrast of the phantom obstacle model. 2-D slices through the center of the mold
showing temperature (K) contours at (a) 1 second, (b) 2 seconds, (c) 3 seconds, and (d) 5 seconds from the
beginning of the pour.

(a) (b)
Figure 21. Surface defect concentration contrast of the phantom obstacle model. 2-D surface defect
concentration contours of the casting at (a) 1 second and (b) 4 seconds.

35
 Figure 22 shows an image of liquid strain rate at 4 seconds from the beginning of

the pour. This plot is an indication of how well liquid is accelerated by the rotating shell

and, for ideal conditions, should show a very high shear at the shell surface and a gradual

decrease across the thickness of the fluid to low shear at the inside diameter of the liquid.

However, as shown in the image, the shearing layer is only at the shell surface, and there

is no gradual gradient in the liquid, which means that the liquid may not be efficiently

accelerated to the required velocity to prevent raining. Moreover, the impinging pouring

stream slows liquid down that is already on the shell, increasing the chance of liquid

pulling away from the shell. This may indicate that the shell may need some type of

surface treatment to increase liquid traction during pouring.

Figure 22. 2-D plot of liquid strain rate after 4 seconds of pouring.

Solidification Model

Although the centrifugal model was run successfully, the run times required,

about 4 weeks in most cases, made it impractical to use this model to run a matrix in

order to identify the problems causing the defects. This model did show that the

36
centrifugal forces due to the spinning of the shell overcame the gravitational forces and

forced the liquid onto the shell once the pouring was complete. The analysis of the

defects showed that one source of the gas defects was the iron oxide decomposition on

the steel shell. This defect is also important, as it could be present without an indication

on the inner diameter of the drum. If the defect was severe enough, the liner and the shell

might delaminate, leading to a catastrophic failure of the drum. A solidification model

was developed to use in conjunction with the gas rate calculations performed previously

to determine the conditions that would lessen or eliminate the gas defects from the oxide

layer on the steel shell.

The previous calculations of the amount of oxide present from the pre-heating

methods used and the resulting gas converted from this oxide layer showed that the gas

would evolve for 64 seconds. The simulation results for the fraction solidified for a slice

in the drum after 64 seconds are shown in Figures 23a through 23d. Although the

chemistry of the iron used in the Pehlke data is not listed, the carbon equivalent for this

iron was calculated from the liquidus and solidus temperatures to be 3.39, with a carbon

concentration of 3.02 and a silicon concentration of 1.12. The solidus was 1127 C and

the liquidus was 1245 C. The experimental measurement had a carbon concentration of

of 3.60%, a silicon concentration of 1.71%, and a carbon equivalent of 4.17%. The

liquidus in the experimental measurement was 1169 C, and the solidus was 1118 C.

Even though the chemistry of the iron used in the model was different from that of the

iron used in the experimental case, the small difference in the solidus temperatures made

the effect on the solid fraction measurements minimal. The units in the r and z directions

37
on the graphs in these figures are in meters. The red portions of the slice are fully solid,

ranging to darker blue for fully liquid.

The fraction of solid after 64 seconds is shown in Figure 23a for a pouring

temperature of 1316 C and an initial shell temperature of 510 C. At these conditions,

about 25% of the iron in this slice was less than 50% solid. About 55% of the iron at the

interface was solidified (red in Figure 23a) and 100% of the interface iron was at least

50% solid. The fully solidified iron was thickest at the top and bottom corners of the

drum and extended from the shell all the way to the inner diameter of the liner at these

two locations. The drum had three smooth undulations around the circumference of the

drum to increase the bonding surface area and a large undulation that is known as a

squeal band used as a dampening feature in brake drums. The squeal band was the

largest both in the axial and circumferential directions. The other three undulations were

the same size. As would be expected, the iron located in these four areas showed a

greater depth of solidification than the recessed portions of the drum, as these regions

would cool faster. The squeal band was solidified to a depth of 3 mm. The three smaller

undulations all had about 1 mm of solid in the bottom portions. The top corner of the

casting had solidified about 7 mm, and the bottom corner of the casting had solidified

about 13 mm.

Figure 23b shows the effect of increasing the shell temperature to 677 C while

maintaining a pouring temperature of 1316 C after 64 seconds. The increase of 300 C

in the shell temperature only increased the fraction of liquid iron (blue) 2%. The shape of

the solidification front remained the same, while the fraction of the iron fully solid at the

38
interface decreased from 55 to 42%, and the depth that was fully solid remained almost

the same at all four undulations. All of the interface iron was at least 50% solid.

Results after 64 seconds and a 1482 C pour time are shown in Figures 23c and

23d for shell temperatures of 510 C and 677 C, respectively. The top and bottom

corners of the drum and the squeal band still showed regions that were fully solid but the

area decreased significantly. The fractions of liquid increased to 11 and 29% in the lining

poured in a shell at 510 C and 677 C, respectively. The entire surface of the lining/shell

interface was still at least 50% solid for both conditions.

A summary graph showing the effect of pouring and shell temperature on the

percentage lining length that is 100% solid is shown in Figure 24. The decrease in

pouring temperature had a greater effect than the same decrease in the shell temperature,

as shown in Figure 24. A 300 C decrease in the shell temperature decreased the fully

solidified length less than 13%, while the same drop in the pouring temperature led to a

28% reduction in length. The pouring temperature of 1482 C is attainable but is hotter

than the iron was poured in the experimental trials. The shell preheat temperature of 677

C was also not obtained, as the shell cooled considerably in the 80 seconds in took to go

from the furnace to the spinner.

In order to delay solidification long enough to avoid gas entrapment if using the

preheating methods described here, the iron and shell preheat temperatures would need to

be higher than are practical in conditions for a production setting. However, if induction

heating was used to preheat the shell, the time to preheat the shell would drastically

decrease, from one hour to less than half a minute. If the time it takes to move the shell

from the furnace to the spinner and pour the iron (about 80 seconds) is added, the total

39
time the shell will have to oxidize before the iron is poured will be less than 2 minutes.

The amount of oxide formed would be totally converted in less than 4 seconds. This can

also be said for preheating in an inert atmosphere, since the shell would not oxidize while

in this inert atmosphere. The simulation of the casting shows that even in the best case

(1482 C pour and 677 C shell preheat temperatures) very little solidification occurs

after 4 seconds, as shown in Figure 25d. In these conditions, all of the iron at the

shell/liner interface was less than 25% solid. The 1316 C pouring temperature and a

677 C shell preheat temperature and a 1482 C pour and 510 C shell preheat

temperatures) also showed minimum solidification occurred after 4 seconds, as shown in

Figures 25b and 25c, respectively. Again, all the iron at the interface was less than 25%

solid, although the fully liquid iron area decreased slightly. At the lowest temperatures

(1316 C pour and 510 C shell preheat temperatures), a very thin layer of iron that was

around 50% solid formed at the undulations and corners of the drum, as shown in Figure

25a. These areas could entrap some of the evolved gas and cause a defect to occur.

A high enough pouring and shell temperature must be used to allow the gas

conversion of the iron oxide on the shell and movement of the gas through the liquid iron.

When a conventional air furnace was used, a large amount of oxide formed on the

surface. This would require a superheat greater than 430 C (the superheat used in the

1482 C pouring temperature, 677 C shell temperature model using typical class 30 gray

iron chemistry) that is difficult to maintain in production situations. If using a different

heating method that took less time to preheat the shell (induction furnace) so that the

shell would not be exposed to oxygen for an extended period, or using a furnace with an

inert atmosphere, the amount of oxide present would be minimal. In this case, a lower

40
superheat of about 180 C (based on the model at 4 seconds using the conditions of 2450

C pouring temperature, 677 C) would be needed to allow the conversion to take place.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 23 2-dimensional slice of the casting showing the fraction of solid after 64 seconds. (a) initial
pouring temperature 1316 C, initial shell temperature 510 C. (b) Initial pouring temperature 1316 C,
initial shell temperature 677 C. (c) Initial pouring temperature 1482 C, initial shell temperature 510 C.
(d) Initial pouring temperature 1482 C, initial shell temperature 677 C.

41
 100

90
Percentage Solidified at Shell Interface

80

70

60

50
Pour Temperature = 1482 C
40

30
Pour Temperature = 1316 C
20

10

0
500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700
Shell Temperature (C)

Figure 24 - Percentage of fully solid shell liner interface length vs. shell temperature after 64 seconds.

42
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 25 - 2-dimensional slice of the casting showing the solidification after 4 seconds. (a) is the casting
with the iron initially at 1316 and the shell initially at 510 C. (b) is the casting with the iron initially at
1316 and the shell initially at 677 C. (c) is the casting with the iron initially at 1482 and the shell
initially at 510 C. (d) is the casting with the iron initially at 1482 C and the shell initially at 677 C.

43
 CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Pouring trials were performed to develop a method to centrifugally cast gray iron

brake drum liners onto a steel shell. Transfer ladle temperature, pouring time, shell

rotation speed, and carbon equivalent were varied in the trials. There was no correlation

between transfer ladle temperature, shell rotation speed, or carbon equivalent on the

number of defects in the drum. Longer pouring times correlated with lower numbers of

defects.

The inner diameters of the drums were machined, and the drums were examined

and rated for the number of defects on the drums. Most of the defects in the drums were

identified as gas defects. Microstructural analysis of the defects showed that some of the

gas defects formed at the interface between the liner and the shell. The gas defects were

attributed to the conversion of iron oxide on the shell surface to gas during pouring.

The goal of the casting process is to form a continuous bond between the shell

and the iron liner by diffusion. Gas that forms from oxide on the shell can disrupt this

layer. The probability of defects occurring was shown to be dependent upon the time that

gas will evolve from the shell and the amount of time it took the liquid iron to solidify.

The time that gas evolved was dependent upon the amount of oxide present on the shell

to react with the liquid iron to form the gas. More oxide will form on the shell the longer

the shell is preheated in an oxygen-rich environment. The solidification time of the iron

was dependent upon the preheat temperature of the shell and the pouring temperature of

44
the iron. The gas that is formed from the oxide must be allowed to travel through the iron

before the iron solidifies or defects can form in the iron and disrupt the bond between

iron and the shell.

A dynamic computer simulation of the casting and solidification of the shell was

developed. This simulation allowed for prediction of the turbulence, solidification rate,

liquid strain rate, and surface defect concentration (likelihood of reoxidation) of the gray

iron lining. Unfortunately, even with modern computing technology, it still took about 4

weeks to model 4 seconds on a personal computer. To model the complete casting event,

a computer cluster could be used to speed up the runtime of the simulation.

A simpler static computer simulation was developed to predict the solidification

of the iron shell. This simpler solidification model was a useful tool to examine the

environment of the casting once the pouring was completed and, using with the defect

analysis and gas formation calculations, provided a good prediction of the conditions

needed to make this product successful in a production setting.

The centrifugal casting of an iron lining onto a steel shell could be a viable

process if care is taken to minimize the amount of oxide that is formed on the shell and to

control the temperature of the iron to maintain a sufficiently large superheat. The iron

liner has the thermal properties needed in a brake drum application, while the steel shell

has the strength to allow for a lighter product. The process also has a quicker casting

cycle than sand casting, so production can also be increased.

Future work on this problem would involve testing the production with a different

method of preheating the shell to minimize the oxide formed, to prove this product and

process can be superior to traditional methods of brake drum production. More thorough

45
data recording and defect analysis could also improve this casting trial to verify the

effectiveness of this process.

The solidification model used was verified by matching the cooling curves

measured using the infrared thermometer. A better model could be developed using

thermocouples and slip rings to more accurately measure the temperatures involved in the

casting.

Another improvement could be made by obtaining thermo-physical data specific

to the chemistry of the iron. There was a great deal of discrepancy in the published data

and a lack of chemistry-specific data for gray iron. This affects many aspects of the

casting that are important for the model, such as the liquidus, solidus, enthalpy, viscosity,

and heat transfer coefficient. Using the information gained from the model to set up

more experimental trials could also improve and further verify the model.

46
 LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Campbell, John. (1991). Castings. Woburn: Butterworth-Heineman.

2. Carter, S.F., Evans, W.J., Harkness, J.C., & Wallace, J.F. (1983). Factors Influencing
the Formation of Pinholes in Gray and Ductile Iron. AFS Transactions, 79-38, 245-
268.

3. FlowScience, Inc. (2007). Flow 3d Users Manual-Version 9.2. Santa Fe:

FlowScience, Inc.

4. Incropera, F.P., & De Witt, D.P., (1990). Introduction to Heat Transfer (2nd ed.).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

5. Iordanova, I., Surtchev, M., Forcey, K.S., & Krastev V. (2000). High-temperature
surface oxidation of low-carbon rimming steel. Surface Interface Analysis. 158-168.
Retrieved June 11, 2007, from Compendex database.

6. Janco N. (1998). Centrifugal Casting. Des Plaines: American Foundrymen Society.

7. Pehlke, R.D. (1982). Summary of Thermal Properties for Casting Alloys and Mold
Materials. National Technical Information Service. 53-60.

8. Perry, R.H., Green, D.W., & Maloney, J.O. (1997). Perrys Chemical Engineers
Handbook. (7th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

9. Sun, H., & Easman, W. (2007). Interfacial Phenomena and Reaction Kinetics
between the Carbon and Slag in the Ironmaking Process. Energy & Fuels. 413-418.
Retrieved June 11, 2007, from Compendex database.

47