Trans Indian Inst Met

DOI 10.1007/s12666-014-0451-2

TECHNICAL NOTE

Mechanical and Wear Properties of High Carbon Grey Cast Iron

for Automotive Brake Application
Aravind Vadiraj Shashank Tiwari

Received: 12 August 2013 / Accepted: 31 July 2014

The Indian Institute of Metals - IIM 2014

Abstract The mechanical and wear properties of three

high carbon grades of cast iron alloys for brake application
has been investigated in this work. The internal specification is to achieve the hardness of 190260 BHN with
3.63.8 % carbon content and other alloying elements. The
results show that the addition of Cu (0.5 %) and Cr
(0.33 %) has only produced hardness of 170180 BHN.
The tensile strength and hardness decline by 1520 %
when graphite volume increases from 30 to 50 %. All the
samples show both mass loss as well mass gains with
uniform friction coefficient due to carbon layer deposit at
the interface.
Keywords Cast iron
Copper
Carbon
Friction

Wear
Oxides

1 Introduction
Automotive brake parts have traditionally used gray cast
iron since many years because of its specific properties
such as good mechanical properties, wear resistance,
thermal conductivity, friction properties, anti-squeal and
good vibration damping properties. From the experience,
fully pearlitic microstructure with A-type flakes in the cast
iron is the most suitable for brake application. High carbon
grades are especially suitable for better noise damping,
heat distortion, thermal judder and cracking under extreme
braking conditions [1] [Bremos, EBC Brakes]. Therefore

A. Vadiraj (&)
S. Tiwari

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mahindra Research Valley,
Mahindra World City, Plot No. 41/1, Anjur P.O., Kanchipuram
District, Chengalpattu 603 204, Tamilnadu, India
e-mail: vadiraj.aravind@mahindra.com

they are almost always used for heavy and high powered
cars or SUVs. The microstructure and properties of cast
iron can be modified by alloying additions. Si strongly
influences graphitization, fluidity and chilled regions in
cast iron. Mn improves strength and hardenability. Elements like Mo, Ti, V, Ti and Nb forms carbide particles
and influence hardness and wear resistance of the alloy [2
4]. Ni and Ce refine the flakes and improve wear resistance
[58]. Al additions decrease the density and improve wear
strength [9]. Rare earth addition (0.3 %) to high carbon
cast iron improves strength and refines microstructure [10].
For brakes application, the internal specifications calls for
hardness in the range of 190260 BHN with fully pearlitic
microstructure and A-type graphite distribution. Therefore
the present scope of the work is to manipulate the alloying
elements of a reference gray cast iron to meet the
requirement. In this regard, three different alloys with
carbon in the range of 3.63.8 % have been developed and
the effects of Cu addition have been investigated on the
microstructure, mechanical and wear properties of these
three alloys.

2 Experimental Details
Scrap cast iron was melted in a 100 kg air induction furnace (175 kW/30 kHz) at TECHNORINGS, Shimoga,
Karnataka. 40 kgs of cast iron was taken for each composition. The required numbers of samples were cast for
checking strength, hardness, microstructure and wear
properties. The composition was checked before pouring in
optical emission spectra unit. Two test bars were cast for
measuring tensile strength along with small samples for
microstructural study and hardness measurement. Hardness
was measured with the standard Brinell hardness

123

Trans Indian Inst Met

instrument at 3,000 kgs load. Five measurements were

taken for each sample and average was recorded. Microstructures were observed in a Nikon Eclipse MA200
inverted optical microscope (at 1009 and 1,0009). The
wear loss was measured with cylindrical pins of 5.5 mm
diameter and 15 mm length in a pin-on-disc machine
(ASTM G 99-05). Two samples were tested for each alloy
and the average was recorded. A disc of hardened EN 31
steel with 685 BHN hardness and 165 mm diameter was
used as mating material. A normal load of 20 N was used
for a total sliding distance of 3,864 m. The corresponding
contact pressure is 0.84 MPa with a PV value of 1.81
which is nominal. The sliding speed for all the tests was
maintained at 2.15 m/s. Mass loss was recorded for each
sample by measuring mass of samples before and after the
test. Coefficient of friction (COF) was recorded online for
all the alloys and reported.

3 Results and Discussion

The chemical composition and the properties of the alloys
are as shown in Table 1. The base cast iron is the reference
alloy corresponding to FG260 grade. The carbon as compared to base cast iron (3.1 %) has been varied from 3.6 to
3.8 % for alloys S1, S2 and S3. The Cu has been added to
alloy S2 as compared to S1 with similar carbon content.
For alloy S3, the carbon content has been raised from 3.6 to
3.8 with same content of Cu (0.5 %) as in S2.
Figure 1 shows the unetched microstructures of all the
samples. It can be observed that the graphite flakes for the
alloys (S1, S2 and S3) are very large compared to the base
alloy due to higher carbon content. This will influence the

Table 1 Chemical composition of alloys

Composition (Wt%)
Base

S1

S2

S3

3.10

3.65

3.6

3.8

Si

2.10

1.74

1.83

1.77

Mn

0.80

0.90

0.88

0.76

Cu

0.55

0.50

Cr

0.33

0.32

0.31

0.059

0.012

0.065

0.047

0.05

0.068

0.045

0.010

Flakes (%)

10.4

14.1

15.0

13.0

Flake Type

A4

A1

A1

A1

CE

3.80

4.23

4.21

4.39

Hardness (BHN)

210

170

170

179

Tensile Strength (MPa)

243

199

196

206

Properties

123

properties of the cast iron to large extent which will be

explained in the later sections.
Figure 2 shows the relation of properties (UTS and
Hardness) with carbon equivalent (CE) for the samples. It
is obvious that higher CE produces more graphite flakes
(Table 1) and consequently reduces strength and hardness.
The volume of graphite flakes are 3050 % higher compared to the reference base alloy. The high carbon grades
generate thicker and longer (A1 type) graphite flakes
compared to fine size of the base alloy (A4). Consequently
the strength and hardness reduces by 1520 % compared to
base alloy. The addition of Cu and Cr conjointly was
thought to improve the strength and hardness of these
higher carbon grades of alloys compared to the reference
base alloy. But they have failed to do so. Higher graphite
volume might improve thermal dissipation at the expense
of hardness due to more weak areas in the alloy. These
weak areas could not be compromised with the content of
Cu and Cr additions done here. Finally, the required
hardness specification (190260 BHN) could not be met by
these alloys.
Figure 3 shows the comparison of mass loss of high
carbon grade samples with respect to base alloy. Two
samples were tested for each alloy. Grey bar represents
the mass loss for first sample and black bar represents the
mass loss for second sample. It is observed that base alloy
only shows mass loss for both the samples while high
carbon grade alloys shows only mass gain for some of the
samples. The reasons for the same is explained in the later
section.
Figure 4 shows the comparison of COF for the alloys. It
is observed that base alloy shows slightly lower friction
coefficient (0.45) with more non-uniformity compared to
high carbon grades with more uniform profile (0.55). The
possible reason has been explained in the later section.
Figure 5 shows the carbon layer formed on the wear
track of the sample (S1). This is the representative sample
and this observed feature is same for other samples as well.
The base alloy did not show up any such layer and this
could be the probable reason for higher mass loss in the
sample (Fig. 3). When the materials shows continuous
wear loss the higher flake volume in the high carbon grade
alloys have generated wear debris with higher carbon
forming a deposit layer at the interface during sliding. The
mass loss or gain trend in different alloy samples (S1, S2
and S3) indicates that these deposit layers may either wear
out or protect the material from further wear depending
upon the contact condition. The carbon layer also shows
uniform friction (Fig. 4) during sliding. The deposit layer
is probably a mixture of carbon and fine metal/oxide particles from the disc as well [68]. It is known that graphite
material as such without moisture is more abrasive by
nature and naturally shows higher friction (Fig. 4).

Trans Indian Inst Met

Fig. 1 Comparison of unetched
microstructures of the alloys

Fig. 2 Relation of mechanical properties with carbon equivalent of

the alloys indicating the decline of properties with increasing carbon
equivalent. (Color figure online)

Fig. 4 Comparison of coefficient of friction for the alloys. (Color

figure online)

4 Conclusions

Fig. 3 Comparison of mass loss of alloys in relation to the reference

base alloy (Sample 1 grey bar, Sample 2 Black bar)

The mechanical and wear properties of high carbon grade

cast iron alloys have been compared with the reference
base alloy (FG 260). The results show that addition of Cu
(0.5 %) and Cr (0.3 %) did not improve the hardness and
strength of the alloy compared to the reference base alloy
and therefore could not meet the required internal specification. The higher carbon content in these alloys has produced 3050 % more graphite flakes and reduced the
strength and hardness by 1520 %. They have also shown
both mass loss as well as mass gain trend compared to base
alloy with higher uniform friction coefficient due to compacted carbon deposit layer. The worn area shows carbon

123

Trans Indian Inst Met

make the Aluminium alloyed cast irons for this work. The authors
would also like to thank Mr. Syamal Kumar Adhikari, Head, COE
Materials Technology Division of Mahindra & Mahindra Limited for
his valuable support and encouragement for the work.

References

Fig. 5 Carbon layer (dark) formed on the wear tracks. White regions
are the substrate material without any layer. (Color figure online)

and metal mixed deposit layer which is probably responsible for friction and wear trends observed.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to immensely thank Mr.
Sharath Bhoopalam and Mr. Sundaramurthy of TECHNORINGS
foundry at Shimoga, Karnataka, India for providing all assistance to

123

1. Oswaldo Cruz, and Altemicio Rodrigues de Azevedo, US patent

US5980651 A, Nov 9, 1999.
2. Da Sheng, Huang H, and Liu J, J Less Common Met 148 (1989)
85.
3. Lotz W, and Porkert J, US Patent 5894010, 1999.
4. Yamabe J, Takagi M, Matsui T, Kimura T, and Sasaki M, JSAE
Rev 23 (2002) 105.
5. Cueva G, Sinatora A, Guesser W L, and Tschiptschin A P, 255
(2003), 1256.
6. Vadiraj A, Balachandran G, and Kamaraj M, J Mater Des 30
(2009) 4488.
7. Vadiraj A, Balachandran G, Kamaraj M, Gopalakrishna B, and
Venkateshwara Rao D, Mat Sci Technol 26 (2010), 842.
8. Vadiraj A, Balachandran G, Kamaraj M, Gopalakrishna B, and
Venkateswara Rao D, Tribol Int 43 (2010), 647.
9. Susumu Takamori, Yoshiaki Osawa, and Kohmei Halada, Mater
Trans 43 (2002), 311.
10. Daowen Zhang, Zhu Li, Ji Huang, J Wuhan Univ Technol-Mater
Sci Ed 27 (2012), 725.