Open Access

Influence of the nitriding process on the durability of tools used in the production of automotive forgings in industrial hot die forging processes on hammers

Marek Hawryluk

Marek Hawryluk

Department of Metal Forming, Welding and Metrology, Wroclaw University of Science and TechnologyLukasiewicza Street 5, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Hawryluk, Marek
, 
Łukasz Dudkiewicz

Łukasz Dudkiewicz

Department of Metal Forming, Welding and Metrology, Wroclaw University of Science and TechnologyLukasiewicza Street 5, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Dudkiewicz, Łukasz
, 
Maciej Zwierzchowski

Maciej Zwierzchowski

Department of Metal Forming, Welding and Metrology, Wroclaw University of Science and TechnologyLukasiewicza Street 5, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Zwierzchowski, Maciej
, 
Sławomir Polak

Sławomir Polak

Department of Metal Forming, Welding and Metrology, Wroclaw University of Science and TechnologyLukasiewicza Street 5, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Polak, Sławomir
, 
Marzena Lachowicz

Marzena Lachowicz

Department of Metal Forming, Welding and Metrology, Wroclaw University of Science and TechnologyLukasiewicza Street 5, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Lachowicz, Marzena
, 
Jacek Ziemba

Jacek Ziemba

Department of Metal Forming, Welding and Metrology, Wroclaw University of Science and TechnologyLukasiewicza Street 5, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Ziemba, Jacek
 and 
Zbigniew Gronostajski

Zbigniew Gronostajski

Department of Metal Forming, Welding and Metrology, Wroclaw University of Science and TechnologyLukasiewicza Street 5, 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Gronostajski, Zbigniew
  
Dec 31, 2024
Influence of the nitriding process on the durability of tools used in the production of automotive forgings in industrial hot die forging processes on hammers's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Download Cover
Article Category: Research Article
Published Online: Dec 31, 2024
Page range: 113 - 130
Received: Dec 24, 2024
Accepted: Jan 03, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/msp-2024-0047
Keywords
© 2024 Marek Hawryluk et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Cost of forging.
Cost of forging.

Figure 2

Mechanisms of wear of forging tools. The elaboration is based on Kannappan A.: Wear in Forging Dies – A Review of World Experience. Met. Form. Vol. 36 No. 12 (Dec 1969), s. 335; Vol. 37 No. 1 (Jan 1970), s. 6.
Mechanisms of wear of forging tools. The elaboration is based on Kannappan A.: Wear in Forging Dies – A Review of World Experience. Met. Form. Vol. 36 No. 12 (Dec 1969), s. 335; Vol. 37 No. 1 (Jan 1970), s. 6.

Figure 3

(a) CAD model of forging tools and (b) an example photo from a thermal imaging camera of the technological process.
(a) CAD model of forging tools and (b) an example photo from a thermal imaging camera of the technological process.

Figure 4

Comparison of forging dies for (a) standard tools after 1,370 pieces, (b) nitriding tools after 1,200 pieces, and (c) an example of faulty forgings in nitriding tools.
Comparison of forging dies for (a) standard tools after 1,370 pieces, (b) nitriding tools after 1,200 pieces, and (c) an example of faulty forgings in nitriding tools.

Figure 5

View of the upper forging die along with the results of scanning measurements of the upper forging tools on the Mitutoyo measuring machine (new forging tools).
View of the upper forging die along with the results of scanning measurements of the upper forging tools on the Mitutoyo measuring machine (new forging tools).

Figure 6

Visual evaluation of forging tools without nitriding after production of 3,380 forgings: (a) upper tool and (b) lower tool.
Visual evaluation of forging tools without nitriding after production of 3,380 forgings: (a) upper tool and (b) lower tool.

Figure 7

Scanning results of the upper forging tools after production of standard tools without nitriding: (a) 1,370 pcs of forgings, (b) 2,240 pcs of forgings, and (c) 3,380 pcs of forgings.
Scanning results of the upper forging tools after production of standard tools without nitriding: (a) 1,370 pcs of forgings, (b) 2,240 pcs of forgings, and (c) 3,380 pcs of forgings.

Figure 8

(a) Forging process and feed material settings, (b) temperature field distribution in the lower die in the finishing impression, and (c) abrasion wear in the lower die in the finishing impression.
(a) Forging process and feed material settings, (b) temperature field distribution in the lower die in the finishing impression, and (c) abrasion wear in the lower die in the finishing impression.

Figure 9

Force in the process of forging for (a) blocking impression and (b) finishing impression.
Force in the process of forging for (a) blocking impression and (b) finishing impression.

Figure 10

Distribution of hydrostatic pressure acting on the tool: (a) view of the entire lower tool, (b) longitudinal section, and (c) cross-section.
Distribution of hydrostatic pressure acting on the tool: (a) view of the entire lower tool, (b) longitudinal section, and (c) cross-section.

Figure 11

Distribution of reduced HMH stresses: (a) results for the whole tool, (b) longitudinal section, and (c) cross section.
Distribution of reduced HMH stresses: (a) results for the whole tool, (b) longitudinal section, and (c) cross section.

Figure 12

Geometric measurement of tools after being withdrawn from production: (a) lower die and (b) upper die.
Geometric measurement of tools after being withdrawn from production: (a) lower die and (b) upper die.

Figure 13

(a) An example of sampling locations with the samples taken from the forging tools after forging 1,200 pieces for (b) preliminary forging impression – 1× and (c) finishing forging impression – 2×.
(a) An example of sampling locations with the samples taken from the forging tools after forging 1,200 pieces for (b) preliminary forging impression – 1× and (c) finishing forging impression – 2×.

Figure 14

SEM test results for selected areas in the blocking impression – 1× after making 1,200 forgings: (a) view of the blocking impression (1×) and (b–h) different areas of blocking impression (1×) from (a).
SEM test results for selected areas in the blocking impression – 1× after making 1,200 forgings: (a) view of the blocking impression (1×) and (b–h) different areas of blocking impression (1×) from (a).

Figure 15

SEM test results for selected areas in the finishing impression – 2× after making 1,200 forgings: (a) view of the blocking impression (2×) and (b–j) different areas of finishing impression (2×) from (a).
SEM test results for selected areas in the finishing impression – 2× after making 1,200 forgings: (a) view of the blocking impression (2×) and (b–j) different areas of finishing impression (2×) from (a).

Figure 16

View of the forging tools after forging 1,200 pieces for different locations of the 1× blocking impression.
View of the forging tools after forging 1,200 pieces for different locations of the 1× blocking impression.

Figure 17

View of the forging tools after forging 1,200 pieces for different places of the 2× finishing impression.
View of the forging tools after forging 1,200 pieces for different places of the 2× finishing impression.

Figure 18

Microhardness measurements for (a) preliminary forging impression – 1× and (b) 2× finishing impression – 2×.
Microhardness measurements for (a) preliminary forging impression – 1× and (b) 2× finishing impression – 2×.

Figure 19

(a) Photo of the places subjected to the test – the place of flash formation around 2× and (b) microhardness distribution.
(a) Photo of the places subjected to the test – the place of flash formation around 2× and (b) microhardness distribution.

Initial-boundary conditions adopted for numerical calculations of the forging process_

Input raw material ∅12 mm × 276 mm
Number of strokes 1× (blocking impression): 12.5 kJ – 1 stroke; 2× (finishing impression): 5.5 kJ – 1 stroke
Temp. of the raw material 1,165°C
Cycle time 11 s divided into: cooling for 6 s + forging in the blocking impression for 2.5 s + forging in the finishing impression for 2.5 s
Machine Hammer, 16 kJ
Temp. of tools 200°C
Lubrication Water with graphite
Heat exchange Average 10 kW/(m2 K)

Comparison of the durability of forging tools_

Tool durability Tool durability (pcs) Average (pcs)
First set of tools Second set of tools Third set of tools
Standard manufacturing process (forging tools without gas nitriding) 3,380 3,200 3,150 3,243
Forging tools with gas nitriding 1,200 1,070 1,370 1,213
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Materials Sciences, Materials Sciences, other, Nanomaterials, Functional and Smart Materials, Materials Characterization and Properties
Journal RSS Feed