Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Feb 26;14(1):4681.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-55089-3.

Prediction of heavy-section ductile iron fracture toughness based on machine learning

Liang Song  1 , Hongcheng Zhang  2 , Junxing Zhang  2 , Hai Guo  2
Affiliations

Prediction of heavy-section ductile iron fracture toughness based on machine learning

Liang Song et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

The preparation process and composition design of heavy-section ductile iron are the key factors affecting its fracture toughness. These factors are challenging to address due to the long casting cycle, high cost and complex influencing factors of this type of iron. In this paper, 18 cubic physical simulation test blocks with 400 mm wall thickness were prepared by adjusting the C, Si and Mn contents in heavy-section ductile iron using a homemade physical simulation casting system. Four locations with different cooling rates were selected for each specimen, and 72 specimens with different compositions and cooling times of the heavy-section ductile iron were prepared. Six machine learning-based heavy-section ductile iron fracture toughness predictive models were constructed based on measured data with the C content, Si content, Mn content and cooling rate as input data and the fracture toughness as the output data. The experimental results showed that the constructed bagging model has high accuracy in predicting the fracture toughness of heavy-section ductile iron, with a coefficient of coefficient (R2) of 0.9990 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.2373.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Effect of C, Si, Mn and cooling time on micro-structure of heavy-section ductile iron (part of the measured data) (a) C contents is 3.3 wt%, (b) C contents is 3.6 wt%, (c) Si contents is 1.9 wt%, (d) Si contents is 2.3 wt%, (e) Mn contents is 0.1 wt%, (f) Mn contents is 0.7 wt%, (g) Cooling time (min) 145, (h) Cooling time (min) 265.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The fracture toughness fracture morphology of heavy-section ductile iron (a) C contents is 3.3 wt%, (b) C contents is 3.6 wt%, (c) Si contents is 1.9 wt%, (d) Si contents is 2.3 wt%, (e) Mn contents is 0.1 wt%, (f) Mn contents is 0.7 wt%, (g) Cooling time (min) 145, (h) Cooling time (min) 265.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Effect of C, Si, Mn and cooling time on the fracture toughness of heavy section ductile iron (part of the measured data).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Four positions in castings chosen for temperature measurement and specimen collection.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Temperature measurement process of pouring and the cooling time of the four positions in castings (a) Casting process, (b) temperature measurement process, (c) cooling time of four positions in castings.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Dimensions of the fracture toughness specimen in mm.
Figure 7
Figure 7
XGBoost model structure.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Structure of the SVR model.
Figure 9
Figure 9
MLP model diagram.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Diagram of the standard Gaussian process model.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Schematic diagram of the bagging algorithm.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Random forest model structure.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Comparison of the degree of fit of the models (a) XGBoost, (b) SVR, (c) MLP, (d) Gaussian process regression, (e) Bagging, (f) Random forest.
Figure 14
Figure 14
Evaluation indicators for each model.
Figure 15
Figure 15
Bagging model prediction results (a) Comparison of the true and predicted values, (b) absolute error.
Figure 16
Figure 16
Comparison of the fitting degree of each model. (a) XGBoost, (b) SVR, (c) MLP, (d) Gaussian process regression, (e) Bagging, (f) Random forest.
Figure 17
Figure 17
Evaluation indicators for each model.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Padmakumar M, Arunachalam M. Analyzing the effect of cutting parameters and tool nose radius on forces, machining power and tool life in face milling of ductile iron and validation using finite element analysis. Eng. Res. Express. 2020;2:1–13.
    1. Yang PH, Fu HG, Lin J, et al. Experimental and ab initio study of the influence of a compound modifier on carbidic ductile iron. Metall. Res. Technol. 2019;116:306–311.
    1. Cheng HQ, Fu HG, Lin J, et al. Effect of Cr content on microstructure and mechanical properties of carbidic austempered ductile iron. Mater. Test. 2018;60:31–39.
    1. Chiniforush EA, Yazdani S, Nadiran V. The influence of chill thickness and austempering temperature on dry sliding wear behaviour of a Cu–Ni carbidic austempered ductile iron (CADI) Kovove Mater. 2018;56:213–221.
    1. Kusumoto K, Shimizu K, Yae X, et al. Abrasive wear characteristics of Fe–2C–5Cr–5Mo–5W–5Nb multicomponent white castiron. Wear. 2017;3:22–29.