A Study of Die Failure

Mechanisms in Aluminum
Extrusion
Authors: A.F.M Arif, A.K. Sheikh, S.Z. Quamar
Received: November 27, 2001
Published By: Journal of Materials Processing Technology,

Presented By: Brian B. Cherry

Date: September 15, 2004
Class: Me 582, Professor Ed Red
 OUTLINE
Introduction
Profileterminology / Die Profiles
Overall and class-wise break-up of failure
modes
Type failure analysis per shape
Shape-wise breakdown of each failure
mode
Conclusion / References
 What is Extrusion?
A compression forming process in which the work metal is forced
through a die opening to produce a desired cross-sectional shape.

Relatively simple shapes

The bulk of aluminum profiles in the construction

industry is produced through hot extrusion. Above is
An extrusion press container. ..Or more complex shapes
 Purpose of Technical Paper
Productivity, cost and quality
are the overriding commercial
factors. All three are related to
the performance of the die.
Due to the high cost of a die Bling..Bling!!
based on material processing
and fine tolerances, the most
critical extrusion component is
the die.
It is of considerable interest to
focus on the relationship
between die profiles and
modes of die failure.
Testing: 616 dies, 17 various
profiles, H-13 steel.
All billets are made of Al-6063.
Getting Rejected is Expensive
And Embarrassing!!
 OUTLINE
Introduction
Profileterminology / Die Profiles
Overall and class-wise break-up of failure
modes
Various complexity failure analysis
Shape-wise breakdown of each failure
mode
Conclusion / References
Die and Tooling Configuration

Liner:
Dummy
Stem:
Die
DiePressure
isProvides
Bolster:
Ring:
ItDie Pad:
Pad:
fitted
and
Holds Floating
protection
ProvidesTransfers
Tooling
with
Die:
thethe
die, or
thefitted
against
the
Configuration
support
Produces
main ram
feederextrusion
in front
to the
the
to thermal
force
for
plateof load
the
extrusion
diehot and
against
the
and stem.
from
mechanical
extrusion
billet
the
shape. the
It A1-6063.
collapse
die
through
of protects
bolster
backer
orthestresses
to
thethe
fracture.
together.
container.
to
life
pressure
the
of large
Transfers thethe
costly
plate
and expensive
stem.
and also
extrusion loadguards
container.
from theagainst
die tobolster deflection.
the pressure ring.
Configuration of a Typical Die

Configuration of a solid flat-face die.

 Die Profiles

Three types of die profiles

Hollow Dies

Solid Dies

Semi-Hollow Dies

Common features of die profiles

 Die Profiles

Sketches and die profiles used in the study.

 OUTLINE
Introduction
Profileterminology / Die Profiles
Overall and class-wise break-up of failure
modes
Various complexity failure analysis
Shape-wise breakdown of each failure
mode
Conclusion / References
 More Terminology
Crack: A visible, generally uneven fissure on the surface.
Break: Component is broken in two.
Chip off: A small piece is chipped off the surface.
Wash Out: Tiny but sig. craters or depressions cause by pitting or
erosion.

Fracture: All fatigue failures. Cracking, chipping,

breaking, surface fatigue, ect.
Wear: Gradual surface deterioration.
Deflection: Going out of shape, or sub-component
owing to excessive plastic deformation.
Mixed: A combination of the above failures.
Mandrel: When the die has to be scrapped due to any
failure in the mandrel.
Miscellaneous: Not specifically any of the above
failures. Softening of the die or bearing
Class-Wise Breakup of Failure Modes
Fracture Type Failures
1. It should be pointed
Failure Types out that
for all Dies 1. Nitriding oven
BPB=brush pathfailures
broken 1. With uneven and
TpB BCO
the replacement of the die cause sub-optimal hardening
CC=corner crack unsymmetrical
1.4%
BB/BC
5.9% sections,
DB=die broken DB/DC1.7%
takes place after cleaning Deflection
and or heat treatment
BCO=bearing of the die.
chipping
TB/TCand existing maximum
10.4%
Wear 19.0% 2.1%
repair have occurred many This makes the die and SfC pressure and friction, the
26.0%
times. The part produced Mixed bearing softer than is needed. ScB/SHB die (bearing) is most likely
0.3%
4.0%
simply is too far out of 1.0% to plastically deform.
DtB
dimension. Miscellaneous 0.3%
2.0%
CvB
Mandrel 0.7%
3.0% Miscellaneous Die Failure BPB/PB
CC 68.5%
7.6%
NOF
Fracture Dm 8.0%
46.0%
8%
Observations: 1. In retrospect, brush Failures
Deflection paths are the
Wear Failures most frequently repeated
1. This supports intuitive reasoning. CvDm
With large TBt/TDfcritical section
8% and thus play a predominant
3.0% role
CvDf in
number sharp corners, projections and 1.0%
protrusions, slots and grooves, combination fatigue failure.
BWO
3.0%of thick and thin sections and general lack of BD
symmetry, thermal and mechanicalDS/BSfatigue 59%

should be the primary failure mode.17%

2. Friction between hard aluminum-oxide layer
on billet and iron-oxide layer on bearingDimC=dimension change
BWO=bearing wash-out
causes hard wear problems.
3. Due to high temperatures and high extrusion Df=die deflected
speeds, plastice deformation should be TBt=tongue bent/deflected
expected. DimC/OS/OW BD=bearing damage Df
97.0%
DS=die softening 96.0%
 OUTLINE
Introduction
Profileterminology / Die Profiles
Overall and class-wise break-up of failure
modes
Various complexity failure analysis
Shape-wise breakdown of each failure
mode
Conclusion / References
 Types of Failure per Die Type
Types of Failure for Hollow Dies
Type of Failure for Solid Dies
1. Since semi-hollow
Mixed Miscellaneous
3% dies are a cross Mandrel
2%
Mandrel
between a hollow and 17%
Deflection
3% 0% a solid die, the even Miscellaneous Fracture
contribution of failure 6% 36%
Wear should be expected. Mixed
15% 1%
Deflection
7%

Type of Failure for Semi-Hollow Dies

Fracture Wear
77% Miscellaneous Mandrel 33%
3% 3%
1. Due to lack of mandrel, 1. Since a large majority of
forces at the die are far Mixed
2% Fracture the hollow dies were simple
less wear critical. 34% in geometry, there was far
2. This would indicate Deflection less of a contribution due to
lower heat of friction 29% fracture.
deformation.

Wear
29%
 OUTLINE
Introduction
Profileterminology / Die Profiles
Overall and class-wise break-up of failure
modes
Various complexity failure analysis
Shape-wise breakdown of each failure
mode
Conclusion / References
 Shape-Wise Breakdown
Fracture Failure Occurance Wear Failure Occurance
Miscellaneous Failure Occurance
Semi-Hollow
Semi-Hollow
12% 19% Solid
Semi-Hollow
25%
1. Additional friction, 26%

Hollow temperatures and forces at

14% the bearing inlet due to the
presence of the mandrel
would indicate the large
Solid
proportion of deflection 58%
failures in hollow dies.
Hollow
16%
Solid
74%
Hollow
56%

1. Since
Plastic contributions
Deformation Occuranceof the 1. This confirms the
hollow and semi-hollow dies Mandrel Failure Occurance previous
Mixed conclusion
Failure Occurance that
Solid
are almost equally
6% smalll, it hollow dies fail primarily
Semi-Hollow
7%
Semi-Hollow
26%
shows that the predominant Semi-Hollow
through wear. Solid
24%
failure for solid dies is 18% 2. Why are the solid and
fatigue fracture. semi-hollow dies about
the same even though
one has a mandral and
the other does not?

Hollow Hollow
Hollow
68% 82% 69%
 OUTLINE
Introduction
Profileterminology / Die Profiles
Overall and class-wise break-up of failure
modes
Various complexity failure analysis
Shape-wise breakdown of each failure
mode
Conclusion / References
 Conclusions
Testing supported the fact that the predominant failure
for solid dies is fatigue fracture.
Hollow dies fail primarily by wear.
Additional friction, temperatures and forces at the
bearing inlet due to the presence of the mandrel and re-
weld chambers in hollow dies are the reason for the
large proportion of deflection failures associated with
hollow dies.
Mixed mode failure is prevalent with hollow dies.
Miscellaneous failure is predominant with solid dies.
Mandrel failure was obviously dominant in hollow dies.
 Flaws in Technical Paper
Very few shape complexities were incorporated
in the study.
Only one material type die, and one material
type billet was tested.
Time line failure wasnt included to incorporate
the data with useful economics.
There variety of hollow dies used in the test
didnt have many details, and could bias the test
data.
 Refrences
[1] I. Flitta, T. Sheppard, Nature of friction in extrusion [8] M Gupta, R. Sikand, A.K. Gupta, Scr. Metallurgy Material,
process and its effect on material flow, Materials Science (1994), 30, 1343-1348.
and Technology, December (2002) 837-846. [9] M. C. Shaw and J. P. Avery, Forming limits reliablilty,
[2] Dinesh Damodaran, Rajiv Shivpuri, Prediction and stress analysis and failure prevention methods in mechanical
control of part distortion during the hot extrusion of design, ASME Centennial Bound Volume, 297-303, (1980),
titanium alloys, Journal of Materials Processing Century Publications.
Technology, 150 (2004) 70-75.
[3] Zubear Ahmed Khan, Uday Chakkingal, P. Venugopal,
Analysis of forming loads, microstructure development and
mechanical property evolution during equal channel angular
extrusion of a commercial grade aluminum alloy, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 135 (2003) 59-67.
[4] S. Malayappan, R. Narayanasamy, Barrelling of
aluminum solid cylinders during cold upset forging with
constraint at one end, Materials Science and Technology,
June (2002) 507-511.
[5] S. C. V. Lim, M. Gupta, Enhancing modulus and Ductility
of Mg/SiC composite through judicious selection of
extrusion temperature and heat treatment, Materials
Science and Technology, August (2002) 803-808.
[6] Bruce Chalmers, Physical Metallurgy, 321-327,
332,1959, John Wiley and Sons.
[7] F. J. Humphreys, W. S. Miller, M. R. Djazeb, Materials
Science and Technology, (1990), 6, 1157-1166.
Questions?