Cast ductile iron (80-60-03) vs cast 8620

[mschro]

We make a fabrication of an auger that consists of welding a cast 8620 flight to a 8620 steel shaft. We are having a difficult time meeting our delivery requirements based on the lead times for the cast flights. A foundry we talked to suggested we use a 80-60-03 ductile cast iron as a replacement for the the cast 8620 flight. Does anyone see any obvious/major reasons not to consider this option if price and delivery can be improved over the cast steel?

 

[btrueblood]

Well...I thought 8620 is a designation for wrought carbon steel, not cast steel. What is the actual spec. that the cast parts will be produced to? Ductile iron is generally considered to be less weld-able than carbon steels, or are you integrally casting the shaft and flights together (would be my preference)? Finally, is the 3% ductility of the DI going to cause you trouble (what is the expected/desired ductility of the cast steel parts)?

 

[swall]

If the 80-03 DI is a serious option for the auger flights (and it is not clear that it is, with the limited information you have supplied)it might make sense to just cast the whole thing.

 

[arunmrao]

Cast augers for pavers? The material best suited is NiHard, I have cast several of them for different machines. 8620 would last ,so long you have the weld layer,once this erodes,the soft belly gets exposed.

_____________________________________
"It's better to die standing than live your whole life on the knees" by Peter Mayle in his book A Good Year

 

[Guest102023]

Any resemblance between 80-60-03 and 8620 is purely coincidental, based on the numerical designation. One is weldable, one not. One has much higher fracture toughness than the other.