Cast irons
Printable Version
You want to be
always up-to-date?
Click here to subscribe to
Key to Steel News
and receive fresh, leading-edge
technical info and knowledge
from the world of metals.
Abstract:
In this paper is presentation flake graphite iron. Finds use due to: its cheapness and
ease of machining; low-melting temperature (1140-1200°C); ability to take good casting
impressions; wear resistance; high damping capacity; a reasonable tensile strength of
108-340 MPa associated with a very high compressive strength, making it very suitable for
applications requiring rigidity and resistance to wear. The different types vary from
grey iron which is machinable to either mottled or white iron which is not easily
machinable. The white irons of suitable composition can be annealed to give malleable
cast iron. During the last thirty years much development work has taken place and it has
been found worth while to add even expensive elements to the cheap metal because vastly
improved properties result. The new irons formed by alloying or by special melting and
casting methods are becoming competitors to steel.
Flake graphite iron finds use due to:
1. its cheapness and ease of machining;
2. low-melting temperature (1140-1200°C);
3. ability to take good casting impressions;
4. wear resistance;
5. high damping capacity;
6. a reasonable tensile strength of 108-340 MPa associated with a
very high compressive strength, making it very suitable for
applications requiring rigidity and resistance to wear.
The different types vary from grey iron which is machinable to either
mottled or white iron which is not easily machinable. The white irons
of suitable composition can be annealed to give malleable cast iron.
During the last thirty years much development work has taken place and
it has been found worth while to add even expensive elements to the
cheap metal because vastly improved properties result. The new irons
formed by alloying or by special melting and casting methods are
becoming competitors to steel.
The various irons can be classified as shown in Fig. 1 based on the
form of graphite and the type of matrix structure in which it is
embedded. The metallurgical structure, composition and section of the
casting largely govern the engineering properties. One of the
differences between cast iron and steel is the presence of a large
quantity of carbon, generally 2-4%, and frequently high silicon
contents. While carbon in ordinary steel exists as cementite (Fe3C), in
cast iron it occurs in two forms:
• stable form-graphite;
• unstable form-cementite, analysed as combined carbon.
CAST IRON
Grey machinable iron White, unmachinable iron no
graphite
Flake Graphite Spheroidal Graphite Pearlitic Martensitic
Ferritic Pearlitic Austenitic Martensitic
Malleable iron temper carbon
graphite
Ferritic Pearlitic
Blackheart Thin Whiteheart Whiteheart Special
Malleable
Figure 1. Classification of cast iron (Pearce)
Graphite is grey, soft, and occupies a large bulk, hence counteracting
shrinkage; while cementite is intensely hard, with a density of the
same order as iron. On the relative amounts, shape and the distribution
of these two forms of carbon largely depend the general properties of
the iron.
The factors mainly influencing the character of the carbon are:
1. The rate of cooling.
2. The chemical composition.
3. The presence of nuclei of graphite and other substances.
1. Rate of cooling. A high rate of cooling tends to prevent the
formation of graphite, hence maintains the iron in a hard, unmachinable
condition. If the casting consists of varying sections then the thin
ones will cool at a much greater rate than the thick. Consequently, the
slowly cooled sections will be grey and the rapidly cooled material
will be chilled. These points are illustrated in Fig. 2, which shows
the variation in hardness of a step casting.
Figure 2. The
relation between the
rate of cooling and
hardness as indicated
by sections of
varying thickness
2. The effect of chemical composition.
1. Carbon lowers the melting-point of the metal and produces more
graphite. Hence it favours, a soft, weak iron.
2. Silicon slightly strengthens the ferrite but raises the brittle
transition temperature, Indirectly, however, it acts as a
softener by increasing the tendency of the cementite to slip up
into graphite and ferrite. Fig. 3 shows the relation between the
carbon and silicon contents in producing the different irons for
one rate of cooling. It will be noted that either a high carbon
and low silicon or low carbon and high silicon content give grey
iron; the fracture can, therefore, be misleading as to analysis,
especially if the rate of cooling is not considered. The amounts
of silicon, giving the maximum values for various properties, are
also shown in Fig. 3. The percentage of silicon is varied
according to the thickness of the casting.
3. Sulphur and manganese. Sulphur can exist in iron, as either iron
sulphide, FeS, or manganese sulphide, MnS. Sulphur as FeS tends
to promote cementite producing a harder iron. When manganese is
added, MnS is formed which rapidly coalesces and rises to the top
of the melt. The first effect of the manganese is, therefore, to
cause the formation of graphite due to its effect on the sulphur.
The direct effect of manganese is to harden the iron, and this it
will do when it exists in amounts greater than that required to
combine with the sulphur-1 part sulphur to 1,72 part manganese.
4. Phosphorus has a little effect on the graphite-cementite ratio;
but renders the metal very fluid indirectly through the
production of a low-melting constituent, which is readily
recognised in the micro-structure (Fig. 4). In the production of
sound castings of heavy section, phosphorus should be reduced to
about 0,3% in order to avoid shrinkage porosity.
5. Trace elements not normally considered in routine analyses can
exert a profound influence upon the characteristics of cast iron.
Examples are 0,1% of aluminium graphitises, antimony embrittles,
lead, tellurium promotes carbide but reduces strength of iron;
0,003% of hydrogen can greatly affect soundness of castings and
tends to coarsen graphite. Nitrogen behaves as a carbide
stabiliser; oxygen has no specific effect.
Figure 3. Diagram indicating the
structures of iron resulting from
variation of silicon and carbon
contents
Figure 4. Common grey iron showing
ferrite (F), pearlite (P) and
phosphide eutectic (PH) (x250).
Ferrite is associated with the
graphite. Note banded structure in
the phosphide eutectic
The carbon equivalent value. From Fig. 5 it will be seen that the
eutectic E is at 4,3% carbon and irons with a greater carbon content
will (under suitable conditions) start freezing by throwing out kish
graphite of large size. With carbon contents progressively less than
4,3% normal graphite is formed in diminishing quantities until a
mottled or white iron range is reached. Naturally other elements,
especially silicon and phosphorus, affect the composition of the
eutectic point in a complex alloy and a carbon equivalent value is
suggested as an index which converts the amount of these elements into
carbon replacement values.
Figure 5. Iron-cementite equilibrium diagram
Carbon equivalent value (CE) = Total C% + 1/3 (Si% + P%)
For a given cooling rate the carbon equivalent value, therefore,
determines how close a given composition of iron is to the eutectic (CE
4,3) and therefore how much free graphite is likely to be present, and
consequently the probable strength in a given section: the carbon
equivalent value is also a useful guide to chilling tendency of a given
section, although it must be borne in mind that pouring temperature,
cooling rate and alloying elements have a marked influence

	Dross
		Manifestation: Irregularly shaped interruption in the material Typical characteristics: Dark scars, foamy dark surfaces, very finely distributed. Dross worsens the mechanical properties, especially the vibrostability which is reduced by up to 50% [1]. Dross mainly consists of magnesium oxy-silicates and magnesium sulphides, and is a product of the reaction of magnesium with oxygen, sulphur and silicon. Preferred defect locations: In the upper casting surface or beneath cores. Mostly in cast iron with nodular graphite, often only visible after the casting skin has been removed. Possible confusion/mistaken defect identification: Unknown Remedial measures: Dross cannot be prevented, only reduced. Melts: - High temperature regime - Low residual Mg contents - Clean melting of pure raw materials - Highly concentrated Mg master alloys or pure Mg - Double treatment - Gas purging - Little but effective inoculation - Adjust CE or Sc to the workpieces - Refining slags (melt cleaner) in the workpieces: - Draw off and restrain treatment slags (large pouring basin,   converter, optimum casting system) - Form filling rising, gentle and fast - Filters are very effective - Dry, closed moulds - HOT casting   Literature: [1] Kaufmann, H., Wolters, D.: Konstruieren und Gießen, No.1/2002; p. 4 to 27 Dross in a casting:               Effect of dross on the fatigue strength                                                    according to [1]    Dross:

	Erosion (washout) / Sand scab
		It is highly probable that these two defects are caused by problems in the following areas: - Sand composition - Sand treatment/preparation - Pouring time The defects indicate that the following measured values probably deviate from the setpoint values: - Proportion of clay - Pouring time - Efficiency of the preparation The two defects indicate that the following manipulated variables should be changed: - Gating technique - Water content of the mould material - Mould material binder - Mould making - Core binder The following measures should be considered to remove the causes of the defect: - Slowly increase the proportion of bentonite - Mix more slowly - Make running and feeding system larger - Train team Defect description: - Washout - Sand scab

 Burnt-on sand

haracteristic features
Thin sand crusts firmly adhering to the casting. The defect occurs to a greater extent in the case of thick-walled castings and at high casting temperatures.
Incidence of the defect
Where there is a heavy section casting, but also in the proximity of the gate and at high casting temperatures, as a result of low thermal resistance the moulding sand sinters on the casting as a thin crust. The tendency of the molten metal to penetrate into the sand pores results in the firm adherence of the crust to the surface of the casting. It is difficult to remove, even by shotblasting, and usually has to be ground off.
Explanations
The high temperature to which the sand is subjected causes sintering of the bentonite and silicate components. In addition, the always present iron oxides combine with the low melting point silicates to form iron silicates, thereby further reducing the sinter point of the sand. Sintering and melting of the impurities in the moulding sand enable the molten iron to penetrate even faster, these layers then frequently adhere to the casting surface.

Possible causes
Clay-bonded sand
Lustrous carbon content too low
Proportion of low melting substances too high
Oolitization too high
Moulding plant
Uneven mould compaction
Gating and pouring practice
Uneven distribution of inflowing metal with resultant local overheating
Temperature of liquid metal too high

Remedies
Clay-bonded sand
Increase proportion of lustrous carbon producer. This increases the amount of coke as well as the amount of lustrous carbon, which then results in positive separation between mould and metal.
Use purer silica sands or, if necessary, add new sand. Reduce dust content. If necessary reduce the amount of bentonite.
Reduce oolitization by adding new sand.
Moulding plan
Ensure uniform compaction. If necessary, increase heat removal from the moulds.

Gating and pouring practice
Even out incoming metal flow
Reduce pouring rate
Reduce liquid metal temperature.

Background information
Adhering sand layers primarily form when the lustrous carbon producing capacity of the moulding sand is too low. With grey iron castings the lustrous carbon content in the sand should lie between 0.2 and 0.6%, according to other authors between 0.2 and 0.4% (1). Due to the difficulty in precisely determining the lustrous carbon in the sand the "active carbon content" is measured and should be between 0.35 and 0.65%.
If sand adherence is experienced this can be eliminated either by using a higher proportion of or a more "active" lustrous carbon producer.Improved coke formation will likewise reduce the formation of adhering crusts but not as much as increasing the lustrous carbon production.
It is important to limit impurities in the moulding sand. Silicates and oxides can lead to excess consumption of lustrous carbon producers due to oxidation (2). Lowering the sintering point of the sand also increases the risk of burning-on, with simultaneous penetration of metal into the adhering layer.
Likewise, intensified burning-on of sand to grey iron castings has been observed with the use of more highly oolitized moulding sands. It is therefore recommended to add an appropriate amount of new sand to that in circulation. According to S&B Industrial Minerals's previous experience the added amount should not exceed 100 kg of new sand + core sand per t of molten iron.
Russian authors report that, when pouring molten steel into sodium silicate bonded moulds, burning-on is drastically reduced when the surface tension is increased through the use of additives. Increasing the AFS number by using finer new sands similarly reduces adherence of sintered crusts because the casting surface is smoother.
The moulds should be well and uniformly compacted. There is a greater risk of metal penetration at locations where compaction is low and thus the formation of adhering crusts.

References
[1] Wirkung von Sorption und Glanzkohlenstoffbildung tongebundener Formstoffe auf Gußstückeigenschaften
Institut für Gießereitechnik GmbH, Abschlußbericht zum AIF-Forschungsvorhaben Nr. 5405, April 1985
[2] Winterhalter, J., Siefer, W.
Zur Wirkung von Feinanteilen und Glanzkohlenstfoffbildnern im Formstoff auf die Gußstückeigenschaften
Gießerei 74, 1987, S. 633-639
Additional references
[3] Grochalski, R.
Gießereiformstoffe, 1955, S. 22
[4] Disamatic-Application "Gußfehler", S. 78 - 84
[5] Berndt, H.
Die Überwachung von Verschleißerscheinungen an einem Sandumlaufsystem
Gießerei 55, 1968, S. 441-453
[6] VDG-Merkblatt F 252, "Bestimmung der Anschnittelemente"
[7] Holzmüller; Kucharcik
Atlas der Anschnitt- und Speisertechnik für Gußeisen 2. Aufl. 1975, S. 17
[8] Boenisch, D.; Lorenz
Modellversuche über das Formkastenfüllen von Naßgußsanden, Dissertation 1988, TH Aachen

[9] Onillon, M.; Rebaudieres, J.
Physikalische und chemische Vererzung bei Gußeisen
Fonderie 31, 1976, S. 209-216 (franz.)
[10] Paskeev, I.
Untersuchungsverfahren zur Bildung von Anbrennungen an Gußstücken
Litejnoe proizvodstvo 1977, S. 26-28 (russ.)
[11] Aymard, J.-P.; Leger, M.-T.; Lageal, B.
Metall-Formstoff-Reaktionen von Manganhartstahlguß (12% Mn) und Chromstahlguß (13 bis 25 % Cr)
Fonderie 31, 1976, S. 265-273 (franz.)
[12] Ivanov, N. Ch.; Skljarova, V. N.
Formstoffmischungen mit Dibutylphthalat zur Herstellung von penetrationsfreien Gußstücken aus Gußeisen
Litejnoe proizvodstvo 1976, S.18-19 (russ.)
[13] Sarma, A. K. D.
Vererzen von Formsanden
Indian Foundry J. 18, 1972, S. 167-170

I want to have a hacker friend, please inbok my facebook! thank you

a. Pengujian Kekerasan

• Alat uji yang digunakan adalah Hardness Tester Merk AFFRI buatan Italy dengan status terkalibrasi, dengan metode uji SNI 19-0407-1998 : Cara Uji Keras Rockwell (Skala A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-K)

• Persyaratan sampel uji untuk pengujian perlu dipersiapkan :

- Sampel uji harus rata untuk menjaga akurasi hasil yang didapat

- Pengujian dilakukan minimal pada 5 titik uji

b. Pengujian Komposisi Kimia

Alat uji yang digunakan adalah :

1. Spektrometer Merk Hilger,

2. Spektrometer Merk Metal Scan buatan Inggris

3. Spektrometer Merk Was dari Jerman

(semua status alat terkalibrasi)

• Untuk pengujian besi cor sampel di persiapkan dalam bentuk cill test.

• Untuk pengujin Baja , Alumunium, Kuningan, Tembaga baik dari casting ataupun profil bisa langsung dari bahan

c. Pengujian Struktur Mikro

• Untuk mengetahui struktur logam

• Alat uji yang digunakan adalah seperangkat alat uji metalografi (Miskroskop, kamera Nikon buatan Jepang dengan status kalibrasi

• Metode uji yang dipakai adalah I.K. 5.4.1.4 (Instruksi Kerja Metalografi dan SNI 07-3622-1994 tentang Evaluasi mikrostruktur grafit di dalam besi cor)

• Sampel uji diambil dari potongan bahan/produk yang diujikan atau sengaja dibuat tersendiri

d. Pengujian Kuat Tarik (Tensile Strength)

• Untuk mengetahui kekuatan tarik dari bahan logam

• Alat uji yang digunakan adalah Universal Tensile Strength kapasitas 30 ton buatan Jerman dengan status terkalibrasi

• Sampel uji dibentuk standart sesuai dengan jenis benda uji (ada panduannya)

Bentuk batang uji kuat tarik Sesuai SNI 07-0371-1989

(Batang Uji Tarik untuk Bahan logam)

1.Batang Uji No.4

· Untuk bahan dari : Baja Cor, Baja Tempa, Baja Canai, Besi Cor Meleabel dan Besi Cor Nodular (FCD), juga untuk Logam Bukan Besi dalam bentuk batangan serta paduannya.

· Bentuk benda uji :

Keterangan :

Panjang ukur ( L ) : 50 mm

Panjang bagian pararel ( P ) : Sekitar 60 mm

Diameter ( D ) : 14 mm

Jari-jari bahu ( R ) : 15 mm atau lebih

Panjang total sampel ( PT ) : Min 250 mm

D	Panjang Ukur (GL/L)	Panjang bagian parallel (P)	Radius (R)
14	50	Mendekati ( L + 2D )	15 in

2. Batang Uji No. 8

· Untuk uji bahan dari : Besi Cor

· Ukuran batang uji, diameter bagian pararel dibuat berdasarkan pada tabel

· Bentuk benda uji :

Satuan : mm

panjang total sampel minimal 250mm

Nomor Batang Uji	Diameter Ukuran Contoh Hasil Cor	Panjang Bagian Pararel (P)	Diameter Hasil Akhir (D)	Jari-jari Bahu (R)
8 A 8 B 8 C 8 D	Sekitar 13 Sekitar 20 Sekitar 30 Sekitar 45	Sekitar 8 Sekitar 12,5 Sekitar 20 Sekitar 35	8 12,5 20 32	Min 16 Min 25 Min 40 Min 64

3.Batang Uji No. 6

· Batang uji digunakan untuk uji tarik baja lembaran tipis dan baja profil dengan tebal tidak lebih dari 6 mm.

· Bentuk benda uji :

Panjang ukur L = 8 VA

(A adalah luas penampang bagian paralel)

Panjang bagian paralel P = L sekitar 10 mm

Lebar W = 15 mm

Jari-jari bahu R = 15 mm atau lebih

Tebal Sesuai dengan tebal asli

Panjang minimal sampel 250 mm

4.Batang Uji No. 1

· Batang uji digunakan untuk uji tarik Baja Plat, Baja lembaran (Plat) dan Baja Profil

· Bentuk benda uji :

Panjang ukur L = 200 mm

Panjang paralel P = 220 mm

Tebal Sesuai dengan tebal bahan

Lebar W Seperti Tabel

No. Batang Uji	Lebar W
1A 1B	40 (Atau38)mm 25mm

5.Batang Uji No. 13

· Batang uji digunakan untuk uji tarik Pelat

· Bentuk benda uji :

Nomor Batang Uji	Lebar (W)	Panjang Ukur	Panj Bag. Paralel (P)	Jari-jari Bahu (R)	Lebar Bagi
13 A 13 B	20 12.5	80 50	Sekitar 120 Sekitar 60	20-30 20-30	- 20 atau lebih

Satuan mm

Ukuran tebal sesuai benda

e. Pengujian CE Meter

• Untuk mengetahui suhu cairan logam dalam tungku

• Untuk mengetahui kandungan unsur C dan Si masih dalam kondisi cair

• Alat uji yang digunakan adalah CE Meter MULTI LAB buatan Inggris

• Metode pengujian langsung pada cairan logam saat proses peleburan

f. Pengujian Termokopel

• Untuk mengetahui suhu cairan logam dalam tungku atau ladle secara akurat

• Metode pengujian langsung pada cairan logam saat proses peleburan

g. Pengujian Pyrometer

• Untuk mengetahui suhu cairan logam dalam tungku pada jarak tertentu

• Metode pengujian langsung pada cairan logam saat proses peleburan

• Nilai uji dapat dikonversikan ke metode yang diingkinkan

Surface blow holes

Characteristic features Individual or groups of cavities. Mostly large with smooth walls.Incidence of the defect Gases entrapped by solidifying metal on the surface of the casting which result in a rounded or oval blow hole as a cavity. Frequently associated with slag or oxides. The defects are nearly always located in the cope part of the mould in poorly vented pockets and undercuts. The formation of blow holes is more intense with grey iron castings than with SG iron. Possible causes Resin-bonded sand  Core venting not good enough  Release of gas from core too great  Moisture absorption by the cores too great  Too low gas permeability of the core sand Clay-bonded sand  Moisture content of sand too high, or water released too quickly  Gas permeability of the sand too low  Sand temperature too high  Bentonite content too high  Too much gas released from lustrous carbon producer Moulding plant  Compaction of the mould too high Gating and pouring practice  Casting temperature too low  Metallostatic pressure too low when pouring Remedies Resin-bonded sand  Improve core venting, provide venting channels, ensure core prints are free of dressing  Reduce amounts of gas. Use slow reacting binder. Reduce quantity of binder. Use a coarser sand if necessary.  Apply dressing to cores, thus slowing down the rate of heating and reducing gas pressure.  Dry out cores and store dry, thus reducing absorption of water and reducing gas pressure. Clay-bonded sand  Reduce moisture content of sand. Improve conditioning of the sand. Reduce inert dust content.  Improve gas permeability. Endeavour to use coarser sand. Reduce bentonite and carbon carrier content.  Reduce sand temperature. Install a sand cooler if necessary. Increase sand quantity.  Reduce bentonite content. Use bentonite with a high montmorillonite content, high specific binding capacity and good thermal stability.  Use slow-reacting lustrous carbon producer or carbon carrier with higher capacity for producing  lustrous carbon. In the last instance, the content of carbon carriers in the moulding sand can be reduced. Moulding plant  Reduce compaction of the moulds. Ensure more uniform mould compaction through better sand   distribution. Gating and pouring practice  Increase pouring temperature, if necessary increase pouring speed.  Increase metallostatic pressure by changing the gating systems. If possible raise the cope flask. Background information The occurence of gas bubbles is dependent on the gas volumes present and their pressure. If it is not possible to discharge the gases from the mould cavity they can be trapped in the liquid metal. There is a great danger af surface pitting an cores because they are surrounded by liquid metal and the gaseous reaction products are primarily removed through core prints. Gas bubbles are more frequently observed with smaller cores. It is recommended to use coarser sands and a corresponding application of mould dresssings [1]. Cores with an unfavourable shape should contain waste gas channels. The necessary cross-sections of gas discharges from cores in relationship to core binders and geometry are thoroughly investigated in [2]. Obstruction of gas discharge results in bubbles being trapped in the metal. This fault also accurs with large gas discharge cross-sections when using phenolic resins. Hygroscopic binders like waterglass require large cross-sectians for gas discharge. Contrary to this, the occurrence of gas bubbles can assist drying af the cores. Use of cold cores in hot moulds can lead ta water adsorp­tian with hygroscopic binders. These can explosively vapo­rize during pouring and lead to defects. With bentonite sands, gas bubbles also primarily occur through the formation of water vapour [3]. This can be countered by reduction of the pouring rate and avoidance of impingement of the metal flow an the mould wall. When this defect occurs tbe gas permeobility of the sands should be high but the water content as bw as possible. All water absorbing materials like inert dust, bentonite and carbon carriers should be as bw as possible. Under certain circumstances this necessitates the use of clays containing large percentages of montmorillonite as well highly active carbon carriers. lt is also recommended ta develop the moulding sand as weil as possible. Well developed  sands require less water and release this slower during heating up. The occurrence of condensed water should be avoided. There should be no temperature differences between cores and moulds. Water can also precipitate on chaplets or chills and lead to gas defects on account of the absence of gas permeability. Frequently used chills can exhibit hairline cracks, in which capilbary condensation of water vapour  can occur and lead ta gas defects during pouring. It is important to avoid too high compaction in the moulding plant. With high compactian it should be checked whether the compacting pressure has to be reduced. References [1] Walter, Ch.; Gärtner, W.; Siefer, W. Analyse der Putzkosten bei Stahlguß Gießerei 73, 1986, S. 612-620 [2] Schlesiger, W.; Winterhalter, J.; Siefer, W. Zur Gasabführung aus Kernen Gießerei 74, 1987, S. 76-84 [3] Levelink, H. G.; van den Berg, H. Gußfehler aufgrund zu harter Formen Disamatic Tagung 1973, Vortrag 4, Kopenhagen Further references [4] Levelink, H. G.; Julien, T. P. M. A.; De Man, H. C. J. Gasentwicklung in Form und Kernen als Ursache von Gußfehlern Gießerei 67, 1980, S. 109-115 [5] Bauer, W. Einfluß der chemischen Zusammensetzung und des Formstoffes auf Gasblasenfehler im Gußeisen Gießerei-Rundschau 31, 1984, S. 7-13 Giess.-Prax. 1984, S. 198-205 [6] Kulkarni, A. R. Einfluß von Hinterfüllsand auf die Gußstückqualität Indian Foundry J. 26, 1980, S. 36-38 (engl.) [7] Hofmann, F. Einflüsse der Zusammensetzung und des Aufbereitungsgrades von Form- und Kernsanden auf Eisen-Formstoff-Reaktionen und andere Fehler bei Gußeisen mit Kugelgraphit 4. Int. Tagung der Lizenznehmer für das GF-Konverterverfahren, Schaffhausen 1981 Vortrag Nr. 8, 19 S. [8] von Nesselrode, J. B. Gußfehler in Gußeisen mit Vermiculargraphit, die beim Furanharzformen mit Phosphorsäure entstehen können Giess.-Prax. 1984, S. 37-39 [9] Tot, L.; Nandori, G. Verringerung gasbedingter Fehler in Gußstücken Sov. Cast Technol. 1988, S. 4-7 (engl.) Litejnoe proizvodstvo 1988, S. 6-7 (russ.) [10] Nikitin, V. G. Gasporenbildung in Gußstücken unter Einwirkung des hydraulischen Schlages in der Gießform Litejnoe proizvodstvo 1976, S. 28-29 (russ.) [11] Ramachandra, S.; Datta, G. L. Gasentwicklung aus Form- und Kernsanden Indian Foundry J. 21, 1975, S. 17-21 (engl.) [12] Orths, K.; Weis, W.; Lampic, M. Einflüsse von Formstoff und Form, Schmelzführung und Desoxidation auf die Entstehung verdeckter Fehler bei Gußeisen II Giess. Forschung 27, 1975, S. 113-128 [13] Kolotilo, D. M. Gasbildungsfähigkeit und Bildung verkokten Rückstandes der organischen Formkoponenten beim Gießen Litejnoe proizvodstvo 1976, S. 27-29 (russ.) [14] Probst, H.; Wernekinck, J. Zur Gasabgabe und Blasenbildung beim Erstarren gashaltiger Metallschmelzen Giess.-Forsch. 29, 1977, S. 73-81 [16] Perevyazko, A. T.; Nikitin, B. M.; Lozutov, V. N.; Yamshchik, I. I. Untersuchung der Ursachen für Gasblasen in Gußstücken Litejnoe proizvodstvo 1986, S. 6-7 (russ.) [17] Pant, E.; El Gammal, T.; Neumann, F. Einfluß der Schmelzweise und des Formstoffes auf die Gasblasenbildung bei Stahlgußstücken Gießerei 75, 1988, S. 238-245 Fig.24 Formation of a large gas bubble in the top of a grey cast iron radiator. Fig.25 Low alloyed grey iron casting. Formation of surface bubbles in the top part. Abb.26 Grey iron casting. Section through a surface bubble. The cut out segment is on top of the rest of the casting. Hardly any bubbles on the surface.