|
|
DUCTILE IRON BOMB BODIES |
Ductile Iron (DI)
castings are finding increasing applications for military
hardware. The ability to produce complicated shapes,
minimizing machining, yet providing performance
characteristics equivalent to wrought steel components,
are the drivers. As a plus, there is often considerable
cost savings. These applications are in vehicles and
armament hardware, and now, new opportunities have been
identified by the DOD for DI applications in projectiles
and bomb bodies. The latter offers potential for
significant adding of tonnage to the ductile iron
industry. Five hundred pound, 1000 pound and eventually
2000 pound conventional explosive type bombs are needed
by the Navy and the Air Force. Current DOD forecasts
estimated requirements between 23,000 and 60,000 per year
between 1999 and at least 2005. Here is the development
story and technical achievements.
Figure 1. Casting vs. Forging
Casting
Multiple sources
Near net shape
Machine features
Install lug inserts
Forging
Single Source
Forge pipe & lugs
Cut & weld pipe
Machine features
Current Situation
Today, bomb bodies are single sourced in steel. The steel
bodies are produced by beginning with cut-to-length steel
pipe, swedging to the desired profile, followed by
machining and welding on aircraft suspension lugs. Steel
aft end guidance wings (fins) are subsequently attached.
The welded forging is heat treated. High cost, distortion
and other quality problems make DI castings an attractive
replacement as illustrated below.
CDIB Requirements
As-cast ductile iron bombs (CDIB) were first evaluated
over ten years ago, but failed to meet a fragmentation
requirement when detonated. In short, it did not
duplicate the requirement for large, uniform fragments, a
capability of the heat treated steel. A program initiated
four years ago at the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC)
identified the excellent potential of DI for meeting all
requirements, if the castings have good graphite
morphology and were in the fully annealed condition. This
structure produces the desired walnut or marble size
fragmentation; plus, provides the structural strength and
fracture toughness necessary for handling, transport and
airborne dynamic load forces.
Table I below provides the desired property requirement
for the heat treated castings.
Table 1 Properties, Annealed CDIB
| TS (KSI) |
YS (KSI) |
Elong (%) | Charpy V-Notch (ft-lbs) | Nod. (%) | Pearlite (%) | |||
| TT(oF) | -20oF | RT | ||||||
| Target | >60 | >40 | 22 | -40 | 7-8 | 15 | >95 | 5 max |
| Minimum | 60 | 40 | 18 | -20 | 6 | HP | 90 | --- |
| TT =
Ductile to brittle transition temperature (F). HP = Highest practical (11-12 verified). |
||||||||
High casting soundness is necessary for meeting the
elongation and impact requirements. The target is ASTM
severity level 2 or less radiographic soundness
throughout all sections. No gross shrinkage can be
tolerated. This unsoundness is restricted to scattered
microporosity that might occur in the matrix structure
cell boundaries or at the mid center of any section.
Other requirements are good as-cast surface finish and
freedom from other types of casting defects. Surface
finish is important because the only machining that is
required is for the nose cone insert, threading for
aircraft suspension lugs and an aft V-groove where the
flight guidance steel wings are attached during final
bomb casing assembly. The balance of the OD and the ID
remain with as-cast finishes. The production 500
pound CDIB body is illustrated below.
Figure 2. Production Unit
| Sizes of the various CDIB bodies are: | ||||
| Bomb Size | Length | OD | Wall, min. | Wt. Cstg Only* |
500 |
60" | 12" | .50" | 270 |
| 1000 | 72" | 14" | .60" | 490 |
| 2000 | 97" | 18.1 | .75" | 950 |
| *After 25 lbs machining removal. | ||||
Development Program
Using an outside contractor, Tolo, Inc., the NAWC at
China Lake, California, divided development into three
phases for the 500 pound bomb.
Phase I: Computer modeling of casting design,
solidification, gating, mold rigging and projected
mechanical properties.
Phase II: Metal process development and prototype
manufacture using test blocks and 30 CDIB bodies.
Phase III: Process verification and a 75 unit
production of prototype bodies meeting all requirements
for flight and mission performance testing.
Figure 3 illustrates the final mold design developed in
Phase I. Sample castings had been produced in a iterative
process throughout Phase I and tested, leading to best
possible mold design to meet all final casting
requirements,
The work determined that:
Casting is best in the vertical position in
no-bake resin silica sand split molds, to minimize
distortion and provide required surface finish.
The long center core, supported only at each
end, must be metal arbor reinforced and top vented.
Chaplets may not be used to prevent local defects.
A large top ring riser and blind side risers
are needed to feed heavier sections.
Zircon sand is necessary in the heavier
suspension lug area (where side risers are located).
Two CDIBs on were the most efficient
mold design.
With this design, mold yields around 30-35%
are obtained. (In commercial production, this might be
improved.)
The total down sprue on the 500 pounder is over 7.5 feet
tall, necessitating metal fill speed trap. Molds are
clamped in a pouring jacket and poured vertically. Two
Keel blocks are incorporated in each mold for subsequent
determination of tensile, Charpy impact, chemical and
microstructural properties. All properties need to be met
after the final anneal heat treatment, so test bars must
be heat treated in the same furnace load as the castings.
During mold design work in Phase I, a long run of casting
Keel blocks was used to determine metal properties and
make process changes to meet target metal properties.
Experimentation looked at different silicon levels,
carbon equivalents, alloying with nickel, treatments,
inoculants, and pouring temperatures to optimize
practices. All tests were of sufficient scope to forecast
expected 6 sigma control ranges for commercial
manufacture. The bottom line is meeting a 3 sigma lower
statistical scatter limit. Keel blocks will be required
when production is commercialized.
During Phase II, three-fourths of the bomb bodies were
destructed to gain additional statistical property and
casting integrity data, check out dimensional control and
develop machining and heat treatment practices. Included
were tests from heavy and light sections, top and bottom,
and lug areas.
Figure 3. Production Mold Design
The plan followed was:
Produce thirty 500 pound bomb bodies with...
24 bodies for property testing.
| Non-Destructive Tests | Destructive Tests |
| -Dimensional -Visual -Mag particle -Radiographic -Lug area load -Hydrostatically |
-Tensile properties -Impact properties -Ductile to brittle transition curves -Chemical analyses -Hardness -Metallographic |
Simultaneously cast Keel blocks from poured molds.
- Tensile, impact and chemical properties.
Six CDIB for arena fragmentation and structural
tests at the Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake,
California.
Simulated Bomb Material Tests
Throughout Phases I and II, parallel projects were
contracted to two government development foundries and
two commercial ductile iron foundries. Each produced
30" long, 12-14" OD simple right cylinders with
wall thicknesses similar to the 0.50-0.60" minimal
walls in 500 and 1000 pound bombs. The majority of these
and Keel blocks cast simultaneously were destruct tested
after anneal heat treatment for tensile, impact chemical
and metallographic properties. The purpose was to verify
if expectations of final properties are realistic and can
be met by any well controlled commercial producer. Some
cylinders were also fragmentation tested at the NAWC, at
China Lake, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Cylinder Fragmentation Test
These results are then verified in actual CDIB
fragmentation tests shown in an arena testing in Figure
5.
Figure 5. Bomb Test in Arena
In the arena, explosive charges fragment the DI castings,
Fragments are captured in Celitex and wood screening for
size, weight and distribution analyses. Fragment
velocities, distance, impact forces, etc., are either
measured or calculated. Results need to duplicate the
acceptable patterns of existing commercial steel bodies.
These analyses show annealed CDIB bodies do the job. A
walnut to marble size appears desirable.
Metallurgical Considerations
Ductile iron bomb bodies must provide equivalent
properties and performance as any steel assembly. Some
important characteristics and reasons are:
| Requirement | Property |
| Flight temp to -65oF | Low transition temperature (TT) |
| Handling -Drop 40 ft. to carrier hold -Drop on flight deck or ground - Roll alive overboard -Flights return with bombx |
Highest ductility and impact energy value |
| Extreme G forces during flight maneuvering | Good tensile properties and low notch sensitivity |
| High in flight static and fatigue loading in lug attachment areas and forces on bomb aft wings area | High tensile and yield strength |
| Pressure tightness | No shrink or porosity |
| Salt spray corrosion and stress corrosion resistance | Improved over steel due to Si+Ni content and ferrite |
| Fragmentation requirements | Optimized combination of all properties |
During Phases I and II, a series of composition and
processing variations were evaluated. Target being
identifying the best potential combination of all
mechanical properties. That is highest possible yield
strength coupled with highest possible ductility and
lowest achievable impact transition temperature, with
minimum trade-offs. The following was identified:
All elements except Si, C and Ni need to be as low
as practical. Actual limits were set.
Optimum CE and Si should be 4.4 and 2.2 ± 0. 1%.
A 1-1.5% Ni level is required at this low Si level to
meet yield strength. Si is a ferrite strengthener and
contributes to annealability. Ni has one-third the effect
of Si on yield strength. Without the Ni, the very
critical 40 KSI yield strength is not met, simultaneously
with the highest ductility, following full ferritization
annealing.
Additional tests indicate nickel additions can be eliminated if final Si is raised to 2.5%. However, the higher silicon raises the notched bar impact transition temperature. The trade-off study is needed.
Full ferritizing annealing results in the
highest ductility and best impact properties. While
subcritical annealing produced equal or slightly higher
tensile properties at the sacrifice of ductility and
impact. Therefore, current requirement is for full
annealing. The reason is full annealing provides
increased homogenization of the final matrix structure,
reducing the "notching effect" of segregation
and cell boundary constituents.
Nodularity approaching 100% and an optimum nodule
count of 100-15ON/MM 2 provides best overall properties.
Good nucleation in the melt was achieved by use of
crystalline graphite and silicon carbide additions during
melting and multiple ferrosilicon inoculation steps.
Inoculation is enhanced when using a combination of
MgFeSi alloy for treatment followed by ladle transfer
post inoculation with FeSi or proprietary ladle
inoculation plus late stream or mold inoculation
at the casting station. With all these silicon additions,
a well managed operation is needed to avoid exceeding
maximum target final iron silicon levels. Smallest
practical additions are necessary at each step. The
multiple inoculations also prevent carbides, which affect
annealing cycles and have residual property effects.
Complete mold cooling is needed to minimize
casting distortion.
Residual Cu and P are particularly detrimental to
final ductility and impact properties. These are
minimized by careful selection of steel scrap in the
charge (slitter steel preferred). A significant charge
component of sorel pig iron was also found necessary to
maintain low Cu and P levels, manage Mn content to a
target of 0.30%, and hold furnace Si low to meet maximum
final Si analyses. Cu and P max levels of 0.06 and 0.015
are desirable. The balance of the charge can be returns,
but should be only "bomb quality" metal
returns.
The minimum properties listed in Table 1 are
easily met in Keel blocks poured and heat treated with
the castings. Test bars taken from actual castings,
although having equivalent tensile and yield strength,
had lower ductility and inferior Charpy properties. This
tended to occur in all cases and is assignable to
isolated centerline microporosity, and perhaps, to micro
segregation which is enhanced by the slow solidification
in large mass castings. Since these properties
necessarily represent n-midsections, and most important
strain resisting forces are at the OD, this may not be a
significant factor. This is however in no way an
acceptance of low radiographic soundness. Keel blocks
provide best representation of the true material
properties.
Whats Next?
The Navy has completed most of the development work on
the 500 lb CDIB and is ready to solicit commercial
foundries for production contracts. We are told that all
development information will be shared with industry.
This does not mean the DOD will write prescriptions for
production. They are only interested in suppliers meeting
the final product properties and quality level
specifications. There are of course opportunities for
commercial foundries to improve on properties, material
costs and processes, such as utilizing cost-saving
subcritical annealing, casting mold yield reduction and
use of alternative production raw materials and
commercial processes.
The production of 75 castings in Phase III is underway.
These will be furnished for not only use in process
verification, but actual flight testing, practice drops
and other mission evaluations. Commercial production
solicitation could begin by 1999.
A very similar program as Phases IV through VI has also
been initiated for the 1000 pound bomb. This program
should be considerably shorter, having mastered the
basics in the 500 pound study. And, we have just learned
that the Air Force is now examining the potential for a
2000 pound bomb.
There will be a number of opportunities for commercial
foundries interested in these types and sizes of
castings, Additional information is available from Mr.
Joe Etoch, 473320D, NAWC, China Lake, California,
93555-6001.
Naval Air Warfare Center - Weapons Division
Ductile Home Officers & Directors Back Issues Contact Us Legal