International Journal of Cast Metals Research

ISSN: 1364-0461 (Print) 1743-1336 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ycmr20

Volume change during the solidification of grey

cast iron: its relation with the microstructural
variation, comparison between experimental and
theoretical analysis

Abel Tadesse & Hasse Fredriksson

To cite this article: Abel Tadesse & Hasse Fredriksson (2017): Volume change during the
solidification of grey cast iron: its relation with the microstructural variation, comparison
between experimental and theoretical analysis, International Journal of Cast Metals Research,
DOI: 10.1080/13640461.2016.1277851

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13640461.2016.1277851

Published online: 05 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ycmr20

Download by: [Abel Tadesse] Date: 06 January 2017, At: 02:52

International Journal of Cast Metals Research, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13640461.2016.1277851

Volume change during the solidification of grey cast iron: its relation with the
microstructural variation, comparison between experimental and theoretical
analysis
Abel Tadesse  and Hasse Fredriksson
Materials Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The expansion/contraction during the solidification of grey cast iron was studied using Linear Received 10 June 2016
Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT). The experiments were conducted with and without Accepted 23 December 2016
melt treatment. Two types of inoculant used for melt treatment: ASSC (Si, Ca, Sr & Al) and KEYWORDS
MBZCAS (Si, Ca, Zr, Ba, Mn & Al). Microstructural investigations carried out to quantify the Grey cast iron; LVDT; SDAS;
eutectic cells, undercooled graphite, primary austenite and secondary dendritic arm spacing eutectic; flake graphite;
(SDAS). It was found that the casting shows hardly any shrinkage during early solidification but austenite
in the eutectic region, the casting expands until the end of solidification. The measured and the
calculated volume changes are close to one another, but the former shows more expansion.
The addition of MBZCAS promotes more flake graphite, and ASSC does not increase eutectic
cells much. In addition to that, it lowers the primary austenite fraction, promotes more eutectic
growth, decreases undercooled graphite and SDAS. As a result, the volume expansion changes
in the eutectic region.

Introduction on a cube block with an exothermic feeder on the top.

During the solidification of liquid metal to a solid, the
material undergoes expansion and contraction through
different phases [1,2]. This expansion and contraction
will be the primary source for the micro-shrinkage of
the material. Many investigations have shown that the
graphite expansion increases as the carbon content
increases [1–11]. According to Stefanescu et al. [3] the
main volume changes during the solidification occurs in
different sections: in the melt, primary precipitation of
austenite and graphite, eutectic reaction and solid. The
first and the last source of shrinkage can be controlled
by providing appropriate superheat and a pattern allow-
ance respectively. The main source of the micro-shrink-
age depends on how much primary austenite and
primary graphite precipitated in the early stage, before
the eutectic solidification proceeds. Efficient and proper
control over the primary precipitation, graphitization will
help us to control the micro-shrinkage. Eventually con-
trolling the micro-shrinkage will improve the mechan-
ical properties of the material by giving the structure
uniformity.
Hummer [4] studied the solidification behaviour of
cast iron by combining the cooling curve and dilation
measurements to determine the apparent shrinkage of
the cast during freezing. He conducts the experiment
According to his observation, the shrinkage of primary
austenite precipitation in lamellar graphite (LG) iron is
hardly any because the graphite grows and compensates
the contraction. However, he had an early expansion
before eutectic reaction and this might be related to the
movement of the sand mould.
Alonso et al. [5,6] discuss the relations between the
volume changes and the thermal profile of a wedge for
different cast irons by relating it the carbon content and
residual Mg. He described that the expansion of the cast
increases with increase in the carbon content in LG. The
chemical composition of the liquid consisting of Si, Ce,
Sb and Sn also influence the microstructure, as presented
by Hideo et al [7,8]. The solubility of the carbon in the
primary austenite as well as in the eutectic is different
with the presence of different elements. As a result, var-
iable micro-shrinkage will occur in the cast and affect the
product in the presence of multiple constituents.
The other approach used by Svidró and Diószegi
[9] was a displacement measurement along the axial
and radial direction on a cylindrical shape. The authors
included an extensive literature review, which deals with
the methods used by different researchers to measure
the volumetric changes. Like Hummer, their approach
shows an early expansion before the eutectic reaction,

CONTACT  Abel Tadesse  attad@kth.se

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   A. TADESSE AND H. FREDRIKSSON

and they related this expansion with mould material
interaction. The use of different types of moulding sand
also influences the expansion. Green sand mould and
furan resin mould show differences in expansion dur-
ing the eutectic solidification in nodular cast iron, the
former method exhibit higher expansion according to
Chisamera et al. [12].
Apart from Ref. [1,2,9], the rest adopt uniaxial dis-
placement measurements. In this case, the measurement
cannot be considered as representative of the examined
sample volume. Understanding the volumetric shrinkage
during the solidification or thermal expansion /contrac-
tion will help us to control the alloying elements at the
same time to provide an additional approach to compen-
sate or reduce the effect of the micro-shrinkage. There
are not many studies presented which analyse the effect
of melt treatment on the thermal expansion and con-
traction during the solidification process. In this paper,
two types of inoculant were used to study those effect
on the thermal expansion and contraction on a hypoeu-
tectic grey cast iron (GCI). Then we analysed the linear
displacement measurements taken from both the trans-
versal and longitudinal directions of a thin wall plate,
along with temperature-time measurements during the
solidification.
Experimental
Thermal expansion/contraction analysis
All the experiments were carried out in a laboratory scale
size. One base material (BM) was used in all experiments.
A total of eighteen experiments were conducted with
the help of the Linear Variable Differential Transformer
(LVDT) sensors. Except four, the tests were carried out by
treating the molten metal with a different weight fraction
of inoculant (Table 1). Each condition was repeated at
least once during the experimental work. A total of seven
out of eighteen presented in this paper. The experiments
not presented are comparable to the results presented
here.
The LVDT experiments were conducted in sand cast-
ing. The sand mould was prepared by mixing 1400g silica
sand and 35 ml water glass (Na2SiO3) as a binder. The
weight of the binder was determined by considering the
amount of sand [13,14]. The mould was then kept in a
drying furnace for three hours at 200 °C for curing. The
final mould cavity is roughly 50  ×  70  ×  10 mm width,
height, and thickness respectively.
Four LVDT sensors mounted in adjustable holes on
a rigid frame as shown in Figure 1. Quartz rods were
used to link the sensor tip with the molten metal in the
mould cavity. The tips of the quartz rods placed inside
the mould cavity were shaped like a hook to stick on
the surface of the solidifying shell as shown in Figure
2(a). The other end of the quartz rods was connected
to the sensor tip by using connectors. The quartz tube
separates the quartz rod from holes in the sand mould
and allows a smooth motion for the rods. The LVDT posi-
tioned in all the four faces of the plate at the midpoint
and the thermocouple placed in the geometric centre.
These sensors will export the real-time data to a central
system during the solidification, except the top and the
bottom due to difficulties for pouring and putting the
sand mould in a stable position. An insulation material
was applied to minimise the heat extraction from the top
and bottom parts of the casting. The sensors Channel-1
(Ch1) and Ch2 shown in Figure 2(b) measure the surface
displacement in X–X direction (longitudinal) whereas the
sensors Ch3 and Ch4 measure the centerline displace-
ment in Y–Y direction (transversal).
In each experiment, around 280 g were melted in a
high-frequency induction furnace (HFIF) inside a quartz
tube. Argon gas was flashed in and circulates inside the
quartz tube to protect the molten metal from excessive
oxidation. In the case of inoculation experiments, the
inoculation was introduced inside the crucible while the
melt temperature was kept around 1400 °C. The mag-
netic field created by the induction coil creates a stirring
effect on the molten metal and helps the inoculant to
homogenise throughout the melt.
During the solidification of the alloys in the mould
cavity; the LVDT sensors transmit the signal in numeric
form and store it on the computer. Simultaneously, the
thermocouple sent the temperature signals to the data
logger to record the cooling curve. The setup consists of
sand mould, LVDT sensors, thermocouple, rigid frame,
quartz rods and tubes as shown in Figure 1. The accuracy
of each sensor was ±0.1% of measured data. The temper-
ature measurement was done by S-type thermocouple
with diameter 0.35 mm as shown in Figure 2. The accu-
racy of the thermocouple was ±3 °C.

Table 1. The chemical composition of alloys in weight percent (Wt Pct.).

Alloy Inoc. C Si Mn Cr Cu S P N CE
11a 0 3.17 1.78 0.567 0.28 0.56 0.054 0.04 0.007 3.732
21b 0.14** 3.16 1.84 0.566 0.28 0.562 0.054 0.04 0.005 3.75
31c 0.14† 3.16 1.86 0.57 0.27 0.563 0.054 0.04 0.005 3.756
22b 0.4** 3.15 1.95 0.564 0.27 0.56 0.053 0.037 0.005 3.773
32c 0.4† 3.15 2.02 0.576 0.26 0.56 0.053 0.037 0.005 3.794
23b 1** 3.13 2.21 0.561 0.26 0.561 0.053 0.036 0.005 3.833
33c 1† 3.13 2.37 0.589 0.26 0.561 0.053 0.036 0.005 3.882
Notes: Inoc.: Inoculant;
CE: Carbon Equivalent (C + 0.31*Si + 0.33*P + 0.4*S – 0.027*Mn).
**ASSC (Si, Ca, Sr & Al); †MBZCAS (Si, Ca, Zr, Ba, Mn & Al).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CAST METALS RESEARCH   3

Table 2. Samples remelted in DTA for quantifying the solid frac-

tion at given temperature.
Alloy Inoc. Size (mm) T (°C)
11ab 0 Φ8*10 Q-1146
21bb 0.14** Φ8*10 Q-1153
31cb 0.14† Φ8*10 Q-1154
22bb 0.4** Φ8*10 Q-1155
32cb 0.4† Φ8*10 Q-1159
23bb 1** Φ8*10 Q-1162
33cb 1† Φ8*10 Q-1164

Note: Q: Quenching temperature.

**ASSC; †MBZCAS.

Figure 1.  A 3D half sectioned image showing the arrangement

of the sand mould with sensor positioning and temperature
logger. 1-Metallic frame, 2-Sand mould, 3-Temperature logger,
4-LVDT sensors, 5-Quartz rod and 6-Stand.

Figure 3.  Cooling curve and terms used to interpret the

undercooling and recalescence temperatures. Tl- liquidus
temperature and Teut- eutectic temperature.

measurement in the solidification region on the dilato-

Figure 2.  (a) A front view of the thin walled cast, displacement
and thermocouple sensors arrangement. (b) The top view of
the sand mould together with quartz rods and thermocouple
arrangement, and possible displacement movements in the
X–X and Y–Y directions.
Density measurements
The density of the LVDT casting was measured by taking
samples from the middle part to assess the influence of
the maximum displacement variations on the final cast.
The measurement was done on small cubes machined
out from the final casting with an average dimension of
9.5 mm (the accuracy of the weighing machine is ±0.1
mg of the measured data). The volume of the cubes is
precisely measured on weighing machine by hanging
the cube on a hanger and immersed it into water, then
indirectly measure the volume of the cube from the dis-
placed water (Density of a tap water used to calculate
the displaced volume is 0.99823 g/cm3).
meter. The experiments were performed by heating
the samples to a temperature lower than the melting
point (around 1080 °C) and then cooling down to room
temperature. Six experiments were conducted by using
different cooling rates (size 19 mm × ϕ3.55 mm). The
cooling rates used during the experiments are 30, 20,
10, 5, 2 and 1 K/min.
The Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA) experiments
were used to quantify the austenite fraction from the
microstructure, compare the secondary dendritic arm
spacing (SDAS) with the samples from LVDT experiment
and roughly estimate the start and end of solidification.
Samples from the final casting of LVDT experiments were
machined out and used in DTA experiments (size 10 mm
× ϕ8 mm). The samples were re-melted and cooled down
in a DTA furnace at a rate of 10 K/min. For austenite frac-
tion evaluation, the samples were quenched in a brine
solution when the temperature reaches the eutectic
point according to the cooling curve found from LVDT
experiment. The summary of the DTA experiment can
be seen in Table 2.

Metallographic analysis & measurements

Dilatometer and Differential Thermal Analysis
(DTA)
The dilatometer experiments were used to validate the
effect of cooling rate on thermal expansion/contraction
using BM sample. Due to the limitations of displacement
Different microstructural studies were used to verify the
structure difference. Among them; optical microscopy
analysis (OM), Eutectic cell count, undercooled graphite
estimation and the dendritic arm spacing measured. The
undercooling and recalescence temperature evaluation
4   A. TADESSE AND H. FREDRIKSSON
Figure 4.  The secondary dendritic arm spacing measurement
technique used on LVDT colour etched samples.
from the LVDT cooling curves were also used to support
the structural differences (Figure 3).
Representative samples from each LVDT experiment
was taken from the central part of the cast for micro-
structural and eutectic cell analysis. Colour etching
method using hot alkaline solution on the LVDT sam-
ples were used to reveal the dendritic arms spacing.
Then, using OM the SDAS for each sample is approx-
imated by taking the average from 46 measurements
(Figure 4). Samples from DTA experiment were analysed
by OM to evaluate the austenite fraction and dendritic
arm spacing. 2% Nital solution was used to etch the
DTA samples. The reagent used for etching the samples
to reveal the eutectic cells was stead solution [15,16].
The principle behind the stead solution electrolysis was
as follows: the reagent reacts with the cell boundaries
and outlines the cell boundaries by attacking the phos-
phorus which has segregated into these volumes. The
solution was made by mixing 25ml HCl (32% aqueous
solution), 10 g Cupric chloride, 40 g Magnesium chlo-
ride and 1000 ml of ethanol (99%). Then, by using the
electrolytic technique, the samples were etched in the
stead solution for about 60 s. After that, each sample
Figure 5. Microstructural evolution upon increasing inoculant percentage from left to right. The first row represent sample with
ASSC inoculant addition, the second row represent sample with MBZCAS inoculant addition. Samples taken from LVDT experiments.
underwent OM to count the number of eutectic cells
per 24 mm² surface area (magnification used for eutec-
tic cell count is 25X).
The primary austenite fraction was estimated from
the LVDT experiment cooling curve with the theory
presented in Appendix 1. Then compared with the cal-
culated and quantified results from Lever’s rule by con-
sidering a ternary alloy (Appendix 2) and the quenched
DTA microstructure respectively. Thus, the different
phases present during the solidification of each LVDT
experiments can be estimated.
Results
Structure
The microstructures from each LVDT experiment is
shown in Figure 5. The structural result illustrates differ-
ences among the samples. According to the OM shown in
Figure 5, the fraction of undercooled graphite decreases
and the fraction of flake graphite increases by increasing
weight fraction of inoculant.
The stead solution electrolysis also shows that
the number of eutectic cells increases with increas-
ing amount of inoculant. The samples without inocu-
lant show bigger eutectic cells and fewer in number.
According to the result, as the amount of inoculant
increases the phosphorus segregation areas increases
due to smaller cell size and larger in a number of eutectic
cells (Figure 6). An increase in the addition of inoculant
results in more nuclei formation. As a result, the number
of eutectic cells increased, and the cell size decreased.
The austenite fraction estimated from cooling curve
decreases upon increasing carbon equivalent as shown
in Figure 7. To validate the calculation, the austenite frac-
tion was measured from the quenched DTA samples. The
calculated result from the cooling curve agrees with the
measurement from DTA and Lever rule as represented

Figure 6.  Eutectic cells variation. The first row from the second column represent samples with increasing ASSC addition and the
second row from the second column represent samples with increasing MBZCAS addition. Samples taken from LVDT experiments.
Figure 7.  Calculated austenite fraction (AF) and eutectic cell
count vs. Carbon equivalent (Ceq). The Ceq increases with
increasing inoculation amount.
Figure 8.  Temperature and displacements time curve measured
by thermocouple and LVDT respectively.
in Figure 14. Samples with 1% MBZCAS inoculant have
the smallest fraction of primary austenite compared with
the others. According to the microstructure, the smaller
fraction of primary austenite the larger fraction of the
eutectic structure is observed. The number of eutectic
cells together with calculated austenite fractions is pre-
sented in Figure 7 for comparison.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CAST METALS RESEARCH   5
LVDT analysis
The volume change during the solidification and cooling
of GCI in a sand mould is shown in Figure 8. The black
line represents the temperature as a function of time.
The dotted and dashed lines show the expansion or con-
traction of the casting and will be discussed later. During
pouring, the temperatures inside the mould increase
and reach the maximum. After reaching the peak, the
temperature starts dropping down to liquidus temper-
ature without involving phase change (I). Precipitation
of austenite begins around 1213.6 °C. The temperature
decreases during the austenite phase transformation (II).
Finally, a eutectic solidification starts around 1159 °C.
After this point the temperature drop and get close
to constant until the end of solidification (III) and then
starts to decrease again after the solidification ends (IV).
For each experiment, the start of austenite precipita-
tion temperature and the start and end of the eutectic
reaction was evaluated, and the results are disclosed in
Table 3.
According to the LVDT results, one gets an expansion
at the beginning depending on the mould expansion
caused by the temperature increase (I). After that, a
contraction during the precipitation of austenite and
expansion during the eutectic reaction occurs (II & III).
When the solidification completes, contraction will fol-
low during the further cooling (IV). The expansion meas-
urements have been compared with calculation in the
following way. First, the volumetric changes during the
eutectic reaction was evaluated from the measurement.
Second, the theoretical calculated was made from the
temperature time curve using the relations presented in
the Appendix 1. Finally, the thermal contraction during
cooling was evaluated and compared with the dilatom-
eter measurements.
6   A. TADESSE AND H. FREDRIKSSON

Table 3. Start of primary precipitation, eutectic and end of solidification temperature and time together with average cooling rates
during the austenite and eutectic solidification.
Alloy T𝛾start (◦ C) TEstart (◦ C). TEEnd (◦ C) Δt𝛾 (s) ΔtE (s) ΔT𝛾E ∕Δt𝛾 ΔTEE ∕ΔtE
11a 1217.4 1145.7 1117.6 37.8 84.1 1.897
21b 1216.8 1152.5 1121 39.9 92.6 1.612 0.340
31c 1217 1153.3 1119 39.8 95.0 1.601 0.361
22b 1213.9 1154.7 1122.8 33.1 87.8 1.789 0.363
32c 1213.6 1159 1122.9 34.2 93.9 1.601 0.384
23b 1211.9 1162 1125.2 32.8 93.3 1.521 0.394
33c 1212.3 1163.4 1124.9 30.3 93.9 1.614 0.410

Figure 9.  The experimental and calculated volume changes (fraction) during the eutectic solidification. (a) sample without
inoculation, (b–d) samples with 0.14, 0.4 and 1 wt-% ASSC inoculation added, (e–g) samples with 0.14, 0.4 and 1 wt-% MBZCAS
inoculation added respectively.

Figure 10.  Linear thermal contraction calculated using data
from LVDT measurement between 1080–980 °C.
The volumetric expansion measured during the
eutectic reaction and the calculated one from the cooling
curves shown in Figure 9. According to the results, the
volume expansion estimated from the cooling curve are
smaller and ends earlier than the measurement. Figure 9
Figure 11.  The thermal contraction for different cooling rates
on BM sample in the Dilatometer. The specimen is a round bar
with ϕ3.55 X 19 mm, diameter and length respectively.
shows that there is a time difference between the ends
of the expansion from the measurement and calculated
value and the former have the higher total volumetric
changes. For samples with MBZCAS, the theoretical and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CAST METALS RESEARCH   7

Table 4. Latent heat of fusion during the solidification; latent heat evaluated from the cooling curve by considering the area under
the first derivative and the zero curve during the solidification interval, latent heat generated in Thermo-Calc by considering carbon,
silicon and manganese contents.
Latent heat in* Latent heat in†
Eutectic
Alloy Heat of Fusion* Heat of Fusion† Austenite precipitation Eutectic growth Austenite precipitation growth
11a –269.34 –266.01 –85.17 –184.17 –110.78 –155.23
21b –246.19 –262.96 –74.18 –172.02 –109.76 –153.2
31c –251.25 –262.8 –75.76 –175.49 –108.24 –154.56
22b –231.55 –258.4 –62.22 –169.33 –102.66 –155.74
32c –241.37 –253.33 –65.89 –175.48 –99.62 –153.71
23b –216.23 –247.24 –55.67 –160.56 –89.47 –157.77
33c –227.18 –241.66 –55.31 –171.87 –79.32 –162.34
*from cooling curve [J/g]; †from Thermo-Calc [J/g].

Table 5.  The comparison between the calculated, measured densities and volume changes with the corresponding percentage
errors.
Density [g/cm³] Volume changes [%]
Alloy measured calculated Error [%] measured calculated Error [%]
11a 7.294 7.246 0.658 2.4 3.103 0.703
21b 7.229 7.242 0.180 2.4 3.071 0.671
31c 7.252 7.243 0.124 2.15 3.090 0.94
22b 7.135 7.237 1.430 1.5 3.018 1.518
32c 7.252 7.237 0.207 2.5 3.036 0.536
23b 7.059 7.232 2.451 2.1 3.022 0.922
33c 7.017 7.229 3.021 3.2 3.048 0.152

experimental values are close to each other and have
higher experimental volumetric expansions compared
with ASSC. The eutectic cell count also shows that there
are more cells in samples with MBZCAS than in samples
with ASSC (Figure 7).
Figure 10 shows the linear thermal contraction calcu-
lated from the LVDT displacement measurements after
the solidification for temperature ranges between 1080
and 980 °C (Appendix 4). The sample without inocula-
tion has the lowest linear contraction in longitudinal and
highest in the transversal directions of all sand casting.
Though, the rest of the sand casting shown in Figure 10
displays a decrease in contraction with an increase in
inoculation until it reaches 0.4 wt-% and then increases
at further addition. Samples with higher inoculation
display more or less large linear contraction in both Ch
[1–2] and [3–4]. The comparison of thermal contraction
after solidification for sand casting with the dilatometer
measurements shows that latter method has a lower
contraction than the former (Figures 10 and 11).
Latent heat estimation
The Newtonian law of heating and cooling method was
applied in the area between the first derivative of the
cooling curve and the zero curve to estimate the latent
heat during the solidification [17,18]. The latent heat
decreases as the inoculant amount increases as per the
results. Alloy 11a has the highest latent heat (269 J/g).
Alloy 23b has the lowest latent heat (216 J/g). Increasing
the weight percentage of ASSC and MBZCAS decreases
the latent heat. The decrease in latent heat is larger for
samples with ASSC addition.
The comparison was made between latent heat from
cooling curve and Thermo-Calc by considering carbon,
silicon, and manganese as the main constituents. The
latent heat does not change that much as the inocula-
tion weight percent increases according to the Thermo-
Calc result. However, the cooling curve measurement
from the experiment shows a difference between each
other. The differences emphasize that the latent heat
involved during the solidification was different. From
both methods, one can see that when the carbon equiv-
alent increases the latent heat decreases. The decrease
is mainly related to the decrease in latent heat involved
during the austenite precipitation at the early stage
(Table 4).
These results indicate that the number of lattice
defects increases as a result of increasing the inoculant
fraction. An increase in lattice defects increase the num-
ber of holes in the lattice for carbon atoms. Thus, more
carbon might be presented in the austenite; these phe-
nomena will allow the extra carbon in the austenite to
precipitate as graphite in the later stage of solidification
and during cooling after solidification. As a result, more
expansion occurs after the solidification completed, as
shown in Figure 8.
Dilatometer measurement
The contraction measurement during cooling from the
dilatometer for various cooling rates are presented in
Figure 11. The contraction coefficient decreases from
5E-5 to 1.5E-5 with decreasing in temperature. Upon
decreasing the cooling rate, the linear thermal contrac-
tion coefficient changes. The expansion or contraction
8   A. TADESSE AND H. FREDRIKSSON
Figure 12.  The density of the casting vs. the weight percent of
ASSC and MBZCAS inoculants used during the LVDT experiment.
The bars indicate a random error from measuring equipment.
along the diameter in the dilatometer experiment is neg-
ligible since the length is much longer than the diameter.
By taking this into account, the volumetric contraction
in percentage can be calculated for comparison with the
dilatometer measurement for each cooling rates when
the temperature drops from 1080 to 980 °C. The max-
imum and minimum volumetric contraction between
this temperature interval evaluated from the dilatometer
measurement was 0.34% with a cooling rate of 1 K/Min
and 0.236% at a 30 K/min. According to the result, as
the cooling rate decreases the volumetric contraction
increases. This result clearly indicates an increase in
cooling and heating rate will influence the total volume
change.
However, a comparison between the volume changes
according to Appendix 3 calculated from densities and
changes of the volume fraction of graphite with temper-
ature shows a reasonably good correspondence with the
measurements represented in Table 5.
Density variation
The measured densities of the LVDT samples show vari-
ation with the melt treatment as described in Figure 12.
The result indicates that by increasing the melt treatment
with both ASSC and MBZCAS the density of the final cast
Figure 13.  Maximum displacement measured by LVDT after solidification ends. (a) and (b); the displacement measurement vs.
change in carbon equivalent by adding ASSC and MBZCAS inoculants respectively. TDS1,2 and LDS1,2; transversal (Ch3,4) and
longitudinal (Ch1,2) displacements along the opposite sides respectively.
Figure 14.  Austenite fraction vs. carbon equivalent determined
by three methods. LR, CC and DTA refers Lever’s rule, Cooling
Curve analysis for LVDT samples and DTA microstructural
analysis with ASSC and MBZCAS inoculation.
decreases. The random errors of each measurement were
calculated by considering the accuracy of the measur-
ing equipment’s and included in Figure 12 to bound the
maximum and minimum error limits.
Discussion
The microstructure evolves by modifying the solidifica-
tion pattern with melt treatment. The inoculants create
a large number of stable oxides or sulphides nuclei prior,
or during the solidification process [1,2,19]. These nuclei’s
favour the inoculation of eutectic cells and increase the
number of growing cells. The larger the number of cells
are the slower will the growth rate for each cell be. The
lower the growth rate is, the coarser the structure will
be. Thus, one could expect that the structure of each
cell will be coarser the larger the cell number is. This is
what has been observed in the microstructures of LVDT
experiments and explains the transition from under-
cooled to flake graphite by increasing melt treatment.
The lower growth rate will also decrease the undercool-
ing temperature during the solidification process in the
eutectic region.
The displacement measurement shows that the
expansion during the solidification process continues
to a certain level after the solidus point. A deviation
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CAST METALS RESEARCH   9

from equilibrium during the solidification process is a

reasonable explanation to this phenomenon. This expan-
sion after the solidification gets lower with increasing
melt treatment. It was also found that the latent heat
decreased with increasing the inoculant in the molten
metal. Decrease in latent heat is due to lager number of
lattice defects formed by the lower solidification rate.
The larger fraction of defects presented in the austenite
will also increase the solubility of carbon in the austenite.
When the solidification completes, the solid will gradu-
ally go to equilibrium and the number of lattice defects
will decrease. Then, the extra carbon content present in
Figure 15.  Measurement of secondary dendrite arm spacing
the austenite will precipitate on the graphite that will (SDAS) for DTA and LVDT experimental samples with the
cause the casting to expand more. addition of ASSC and MBZCAS inoculant.
When the expansion at the end the solidification pro-
cess has completed the casting starts to contract: This
contraction was compared with the dilatometer meas- Table 6. Undercooled graphite area percentage measurement
urements that does not involve melting. The contraction from LVDT experimental microstructure, undercooling and
was relatively higher in the casting than in the dilatom- recalescence temperatures evaluated from cooling curves.
eter measurements. The higher contraction is related to Alloy Undercooled [%] ΔT * (°C) ΔT ** (°C)
the increase in numbers of eutectic cells. 11a 5.28 28 15.8
The LVDT samples density variation disclosed in 21b 0.71 28 14.8
31c 1.39 27.6 15.6
Figure 12 was mainly due to the structural modification 22b 0.61 23.8 12
as described in Figure 5 and the mode of expansion 32c 0.36 22.8 10.7
23b 0.14 23.1 9
occur during the solidification as shown in Figure 13. 33c 0.09 21.6 10.2
It is clearly shown that the density of the sample highly
*Undercooling; **Recalescence.
influenced by the phase and mode of solidification the
casting went through. If a casting exhibits non-uniform
expansion and contraction during solidification in addi- Table 7. Thermo-Physical properties for grey cast iron.
tion to the presence of different phases in the final cast,
Specific heat of liquid [24] (Cp − Jg
−1◦ −1
C ) 0.976
then the density will fluctuate.
Density of liquid [22] (𝜌l − gcm−3) 7.021
If we take alloy 21b and 31c, marked with 1 and 2 Density of graphite [22] 2.193
(𝜌gr − gcm−3)
in Figure 13 respectively: alloy 21b has higher transver- Heat of fusiona (ΔH 𝛾 &ΔH eut − Jg−1)
sal expansion just after solidification finishes, on the
Note: aCalculated using the Newtonian heating and cooling method [18].
other hand alloy 31c has lower transversal expansion.
Both samples have average expansion in the longitu-
dinal direction. After the solidification completes, both On the other hand, by increasing the melt treatment,
samples were expected to behave more or less the same a reduction in austenite fraction, SDAS, undercooled
fashion since they passed the solidification point. As graphite, and the undercooling and recalescence tem-
expected, alloy 21b has a lower density than alloy 31c; peratures is observed (Figures 14 and 15 and Table 6). The
this is due to the high volume expansion of the eutectic undercooling and recalescence temperatures reduced
cells and pores formation between the cells in the cell by 5 °C upon increasing the inoculant up to 0.4 wt-%,
boundaries makes the casting less compact. Similarly, but further increase in weight percent does not have a
by taking the rest of the measurements for each sample considerable effect (Table 6). On the contrary, increasing
from Figure 13 and trying to correspond with its density the inoculant more than 0.4 wt-%, the SDAS decreases
in Figure 12, the density variation exactly matches how even more in both LVDT and DTA samples enclosed in
the casting behaves during the solidification. Figure 15. As it is well documented and described in pre-
Typically, in thin-walled casting, if the casting has vious studies [20,21], the dendritic arm spacing should
large expansion in the transversal direction during the not be too small to allow the melt flow through the den-
solidification, then the castings more likely to have larger drite arm spacing to prevent micro-shrinkage. Thus, by
pore fraction unless compensated by providing molten applying an average amount of inoculant, according to
metal using a feeder. The melt treatment with inoculant the experimental results around 0.4 wt-%, it is possible
reduces the total volume contraction by decreasing the to minimize the undercooled graphite and undercooling
transversal expansion. Since the expansion in the trans- without affecting the SDAS that much. Too small SDAS
versal direction contributes the major part of the volume will also force the localized solidification interval to be
change during solidification. shorter by increasing the cooling rate. As a result, the
10   A. TADESSE AND H. FREDRIKSSON
coarseness of structure within the eutectic cells will be
affected. (Localized cooling rate calculated from the cool-
ing curve is disclosed in Table 3).
If we roughly calculate the growth rate along the
transversal and longitudinal directions by taking the
casting dimensions and the solidification time described
in Table 3. Upon increasing the melt treatment, the local
solidification time interval increases and undercooling
decreases, as a result, the growth rate gets reduced. Thus,
one should expect a coarsened structure within the cells.
Increasing the carbon equivalent by increasing the
inoculant will decrease the austenite fraction; as a result,
the remaining melt will have higher carbon fraction
and influence the volume expansion during eutectic
solidification.
Conclusion
Multiple numbers of sand casting experiment on GCI
were performed with and without melt treatment. The
thermal expansion/contraction during the solidification
and cooling curve in each experiment were recorded
using LVDT and temperature sensors. Extensive studies
were carried out by analysing the displacement-cooling
curves for each trial by comparing with theoretical cal-
culation. Different microstructural analysis was used to
compliment the variation in the displacement measure-
ments. After the completion of these studies, the follow-
ing conclusions were drawn:
The volume expansion during the solidification influ-
enced by a number of factors: the primary austenite pre-
cipitation, the amount of carbon present in the eutectic
solidification region, the local solidification time interval,
the undercooling and the eutectic cell numbers.
Despite the casting shape, the expansion in the adja-
cent sides gets closer one another upon increasing the
melt treatment. This will emphasise that the addition of
inoculant will minimize the heat flux release from the
sides and makes it uniform.
The measured and the calculated volumetric expan-
sion (fraction) during the eutectic solidification are close
to each other, but the former shows more expansion.
The microstructure gets improved by decreasing
the fraction of undercooled graphite and promotes
flake graphite during the solidification. The eutectic
cell increase will also lower the growth rate and leads
the structure to be coarser within the cells. As a result,
the volume expansion during eutectic solidification
increases. On the other hand, the inoculant amount
must be within certain limits. Otherwise, it can reduce
the SDAS too much and prevent the liquid movement
between SDAS and leads to micro-shrinkage on the final
castings.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge ELKEM AS, FOUNDRY
TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS R&D for financial and material sup-
ports in accomplishing this work.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Abel Tadesse   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7474-2053
References
  [1] Tadesse A, Fredriksson H. The effect of inoculation on the
thermal expansion/contraction during solidification of
gray cast iron. Mater Sci Forum. 2014;790–791:447–451.
  [2] Tadesse A, Fredriksson H. Experimental studies of gray
cast iron solidification with Linear Variable Differential
Transformer. In: Nastac, L, Baicheng L, Hasse F, editors.
Advances in the Science and Engineering of Casting
Solidification. An MPMD Symposium Honoring Doru
Michael Stefanescu. Orlando (FL): Wiley; 2015. p. 305–312.
 [3]  Stefanescu DM, Moran M, Boonmee S. The use of
combined liquid displacement and cooling curve analysis
in understanding the solidification of cast iron. AFS Trans.
2012;120:365–374.
  [4] Hummer R. A study of the shrinkage and dilatation during
solidification of nodular cast iron – its relation to the
morphology of crystallisation. In: Fredriksson H, Hillert
M, editors. The physical metallurgy of cast iron. MRS
Symposia Proceedings. Vanderbilt Avenue (NY): Elsevier;
1984. Vol. 34, p. 213–222.
  [5] Alonso G, Stefanescu DM, Suarez R, et al. Understanding
graphite expansion during the eutectic solidification of
cast iron through combined Linear Displacement and
Thermal Analysis. Int Foundry Res. 2014;66(4):2–12.
 [6] Alonso G, Stefanescu DM, Suarez R, et al. Kinetics of
graphite expansion during eutectic solidification of cast
iron. Int J Cast Met Res. 2014;27(2):87–100.
  [7] Nakae H, Jung S, Shin H. Formation mechanism of chunky
graphite and its preventive measures. J Mater Sci Tec.
2008;24(3):289–295.
  [8] Nakae H, Fukami M, Kitazawa T, Zou Y. Influence of Si, Ce,
Sb and Sn on chunky graphite formation. Chin Foundry.
2010;8(1):96–100.
 [9] Svidró P, Diószegi A. On problems of volume change
measurements in lamellar cast iron. Int J Cast Met Res.
2013;27:26–37.
[10] Stefanescu DM. Computer simulation of shrinkage related
defects in metal castings – a review. Int J Cast Met Res.
2005;18(3):129–143.
[11] Yang Y, Alhainen J. Functional improvement of dilatation
analysis on thermal analysis for S.G. iron quality estimation.
AMR. 1997;4–5:433–438.
[12] Chisamera M, Riposan I, Stan S, et al. Shrinkage evaluation
in ductile iron as influenced by mould media and inoculant
type. Int J Cast Met Res. 2011;24(1):28–36.
[13] Granat K, Nowak D, et al. The influence of microwave
heating and water glass kind on the properties of molding
sands. Arch Foundry Eng. 2008;8(1):119–122.
[14] Brown JR. Foseco non-ferrous foundryman’s handbook.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1999. p. 204–215.
[15] Fras E, Gorny M, Lopez H. Eutectic cell and nodule count
in cast iron Part II. Experimental verification. ISIJ Int.
2007;47(2):269–276.
[16] Burkhart RD; Deere & Company. Method for electrolytic
etching of gray irons with stead’s reagent. United States
patent US 3,996,119. 1976 Dec 7. Iowa, Moline (IL).
[17] Fredriksson H, Åkerlind U. Solidification and crystallization
processing in metals and alloys. Chichester (UK): Wiley;
2012. p. 361–432.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CAST METALS RESEARCH   11

[18] Stefanescu DM. Thermal analysis – theory and applications
in metalcasting. IJMC. 2015;9(1):7–22.
[19] Muhmond HM, Fredriksson H. Relationship between
inoculants and the morphologies of MnS and graphite
in gray cast iron. Metall Mater Trans B. 2012;44B:283–298.
[20] Elmquist L, Diószegi A. Relation between SDAS and
eutectic cell size in grey iron. Int J Cast Met Res.
2010;23(4):240–245.
[21] Jabbari MM, Davami P, Varahram N. Effect of cooling rate
on microstructure and mechanical properties of gray cast
iron. Mater Sci Eng A. 2010;528(2):583–588.
[22] Stefanescu DM. Science and engineering of casting
solidification. New York (NY): Springer; 2015. p. 485–492.
[23] ASM ready reference. Thermal properties of metals.
p. 9–13; 2002. Materials Park, Ohio (US): ASM International.
[24] Angus HT. Cast iron: physical and engineering properties.
London: Butterworth & Co.; 1978. p. 112–123.
Appendix 1. Theoretical background
The theoretical parts mainly focused on the solidification. It
considers the three main parts; parts with no phase changes
occur at the beginning, a region where austenite precipitation
occurs and the eutectic solidification region. Thermo-physical
properties are shown in Table 7.
• The slope of a temperature-time curve in the first stage
can be referred as the cooling rate. In this part, the
molten metal cool down without a phase change; the
liquid is considered to be in the superheat region. No
solidification occurs.
Hence the heat balance becomes;
dQ∕dt = V × 𝜌l × Cp × dT ∕dt (1)
and the mass balance should be considered. The heat
balance becomes;
dQ∕dt = (V × 𝜌eut × ΔH eut × dfeut ∕dt) (4)
where ΔH eut is the heat of solidification of eutectic, dfeut/
dt is the volume fraction change of eutectic per change in
time, 𝜌eut is the density of eutectic.
The first part of Equation (3) is neglected in (Equation 4),
since the heat of solidification is around 400 times Cp and
the temperature variation is very small during the eutec-
tic growth. Hence the heat transfer expressed with heat of
fusion.
From mass balance;
fgreut = 1 − f𝛾eut (5)
where fgreut and f𝛾eut are the fraction of graphite and austen-
ite in the eutectic solid respectively, this can be taken from
phase diagram.
𝜌eut = fgreut × 𝜌gr + f𝛾eut × 𝜌𝛾 (6)
By combing Equations (2) and (4)–(6) in the eutectic for-
mation region, the fraction of eutectic can be calculated.
𝜌 = 𝜌l × 1 − fs + fs × (fgr(𝛾+eut) × 𝜌gr + f𝛾(𝛾+eut) × 𝜌𝛾 )
( )
(7)
where 𝜌 the density of system contains solid and liquid,
fs = f𝛾 + feut, fgr(𝛾+eut) is the fraction of graphite in primary
austenite plus eutectic, f𝛾(𝛾+eut) is the fraction of austenite in
primary austenite plus eutectic.

where V is the volume of sample, 𝜌l is the density of liquid,

ΔV = (𝜌 − 𝜌l ) 𝜌
/
Cp is the specific heat capacity and dT/dt is the cooling rate. l
(8)
where ΔV is the volume change (fraction).
Chvorinov’s law can also be applied to determine heat
transfer; By combing Equations 7 and 8 in eutectic solidification
region, the volume changes can be calculated.
(2)
√
dQ∕dt = K ∕ t

where K is the modulus constant and t is the time in super

heat region
Appendix 2. Lever rule
By applying the above two equations the heat transfer at
this stage will be determined, and the modulus constant The austenite fraction is calculated based on ternary alloy (Fe,
is calculated. C and Si) and the maximum carbon content in austenite and
• In the second stage, austenite formation occurs. Solid eutectic is assumed according to the following equations.
and liquid phases present in this region, the heat and
(9)
Max
CAustenite = 2.07 − 0.98 × Si%
mass balance should be considered to determine the
variables.
Heat balance becomes; CEutectic = 4.26 − 0.296 × Si% (10)
dQ∕dt = (V × 𝜌l × Cp + V × 𝜌𝛾 × ΔH 𝛾 × df𝛾 ∕dT ) × dT ∕dt (3)
where ΔH 𝛾 is the heat of solidification of austenite, dfγ/dT is
fAustenite = (CEutectic − CC ) (C
/
the austenite formation per temperature change, 𝜌𝛾 is the Eutectic
Max
− CAustenite ) (11)
density of austenite.
By applying Equations 2 and 3 in the austenite formation where CAustenite
Max
and CEutectic are maximum carbon con-
region, the fraction of austenite can be calculated.
• The third and last stage of solidification; the remaining
tent in austenite, eutectic for a given alloy respectively.
liquid melt left after austenite formation undergoes a CC is carbon content for a given alloy. fAustenite is fraction
eutectic transformation. In this part, the heat balance of austenite according with the lever rule.
12   A. TADESSE AND H. FREDRIKSSON

Appendix 3. Density and volume calculation Appendix 4. Linear thermal contraction

by considering density changes with
temperature
The density of austenite, graphite and cast iron can be
expressed by using the temperature and the carbon
­ o
­equivalent for a given alloy according to [22]
𝜌l = 8192.2 − 0.5402 × T − 9805.3 × Ceq (12)
2
𝜌𝛾 = 8238.2 − 0.48684 × T − 3876 × Ceq − 5982 × Ceq (13)
The linear thermal contraction is calculated based on the dis-
placement changes on the side due to temperature change [23]
𝛼l = Δl (l × ΔT ) = (lf − lo ) (l × ΔT )
/ /
o
(15)
where αl is the linear thermal contraction coefficient, lf
and lo are the final and initial displacements respectively
and ΔT is the change in temperature in K.

𝜌gr = 2292.9 − 0.067442 × T (14)

where ρl, ργ and ρgr are density of liquid, austenite and
graphite respectively (kg/m3). T is temperature in K and
Ceq is the carbon equivalent.