Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
(OP)
I was wondering if I might be able to get some input from you guys regarding a failure I'm currently working on. I am investigating a die case that has fractured into two pieces. I've attached a .pdf of what I have so far. I've included some short background information as well that will explain a few things (too long to type up here).
Just to summarize my findings to this point:
1. steel chemistry meets spec for H13 hot work tool steel
2. bulk hardness is approximately 49.3 HRC, which is slightly above spec of 46-48 HRC
3. microhardness showed a decarburized layer of roughly 0.003" along ONLY the threaded area of inside diameter
4. failure mode is fatigue with propagation occurring directly through the bottom land of final thread on inside diameter
5. unknown surface layer (looks like some sort of scale/oxide) that has hardness of ~80 HRB found ONLY along the entire threaded area (all other surfaces are ~47-49 HRC)
6. microstructure and grain size are as expected - no issues here
7. no surface damage or deformation anywhere in the vicinity of fracture site (threads included)
8. due to ratchet/beach marks on fracture surface, this defect was already present prior to the die assembly being reworked (explained more in attachment)
I realize this is a lot of information but I would really appreciate some input as I'm a bit stumped right now. The only root cause I can come up with is that failure was initiated due to this strange surface layer along threads, which served as stress riser with the final thread being the weakest site hence failure initiating and propagating here. What could this unknown surface layer be and where might it have come from (manufacturing defect)??
Thank you in advance.
Just to summarize my findings to this point:
1. steel chemistry meets spec for H13 hot work tool steel
2. bulk hardness is approximately 49.3 HRC, which is slightly above spec of 46-48 HRC
3. microhardness showed a decarburized layer of roughly 0.003" along ONLY the threaded area of inside diameter
4. failure mode is fatigue with propagation occurring directly through the bottom land of final thread on inside diameter
5. unknown surface layer (looks like some sort of scale/oxide) that has hardness of ~80 HRB found ONLY along the entire threaded area (all other surfaces are ~47-49 HRC)
6. microstructure and grain size are as expected - no issues here
7. no surface damage or deformation anywhere in the vicinity of fracture site (threads included)
8. due to ratchet/beach marks on fracture surface, this defect was already present prior to the die assembly being reworked (explained more in attachment)
I realize this is a lot of information but I would really appreciate some input as I'm a bit stumped right now. The only root cause I can come up with is that failure was initiated due to this strange surface layer along threads, which served as stress riser with the final thread being the weakest site hence failure initiating and propagating here. What could this unknown surface layer be and where might it have come from (manufacturing defect)??
Thank you in advance.





RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
Also, I had thought this layer was decarburized since it showed such low hardness. However, after etching, this layer simply got extremely dark. So it looks like it is NOT decarburization, which would make sense if it was sulfidation.
Is this what the layer might be? I've asked for confirmation on whether this die case was really used for cold forming or if in fact it was for hot.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
I would strongly suugest you have this surface evaluated using SEM/EDS. If necessary, send it to an outside met lab.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
I agree with that advice and will arrange to have it sent out for SEM/EDS as I don't have that capability here.
In the meantime, I would really appreciate any ideas of what it might be based on the information I provided. I know it's speculation but I don't believe there's any harm in going through some possibilities while waiting for EDS results.
As for sulfidation, I found out that the die was in fact used for cold forming but that temperatures typically reach as high as 400 degrees C while continuously running. Some sources I found mention that sulfidation could occur as low as 250 degrees C in some environments.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
The surface contaminant that is resuting in grain boundary oxides could be from residue during forming and not removed prior to heat treatment, poor atmosphere control during heat treatment, ....
After conducting many failure investigations over the years don't try to come to conclusions too quickly and miss the obvious. This is all I am saying...
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
Cracking in first thread leads one to believe that the thread was overload or a had relatively loose fit which allowed relative movement.
We had trouble with H-13 parts that were heat treated using a salt bath and later being cleaned in a salt bath. The layer formed in this case was more general but was much softer that the parent metal.
We also had trouble with H-13 due cracking from nascent Hydrogen from the process.
Another quick test would be to re-temper a section at the temperature stated in the literature and see what happens to the hardness.
As posted the composition of the layer will be interesting, but I think getting the fracture surface in an SEM will tell you a lot. i think you should be on hand if you don't have access to one and be the pilot.
There is one possibility that you had a quench crack that let go when the load was applied. It is not unusual for tool steel dies to let go on the first hit. We had several failure of this type where the part broke on the shelf. All were attributed to an aggressive heat treatment.
I sure hate it when a tool steel fails by fatigue as normally the fatigue markers are not very discernible and it takes a little work to make them visible.
Is this a wrought product?
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
I hadn't thought about the possibility that it could be grain boundary oxidation as a possible result of forming. I just found it very strange that the ONLY surface areas that showed this was isolated to the threads. I do understand what you're saying though. I may have been a little hasty in come to a conclusion but I guess that's what happens when there's a deadline to be met and lots of people are waiting for who to blame. :)
CoryPad,
I have asked the vendor for details regarding forming and am waiting to hear back. Unfortuately, it was made in Taiwan and so getting these details isn't the easiest/quickest process. It does make sense that this layer was likely picked up during heat treatment though.
unclesyd,
As suggested by metengr, I will submit this sample for EDS/SEM and find out the composition of this layer. I am very interested in this as well. I do want to specify about the fracture location though. It was actually through the final thread (deep inside the die case). The were no signs of use/wear or deformation on ANY threads. I suppose it could have been possible that there was a quench crack but this part seems to have been in service awhile due to the quite clear and extensive fatigue markings. I'm not sure if it's a wrought product or not.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
Die cases such as these are typically turned and ground after the quench and temper operation to ensure excellent straightness, concentricity, etc. I agree with CoryPad that the surface of the threads appear to have EXTENSIVE intergranular oxidation (IGO) that occurred during heat treating. The rest of the case has been machined so that the oxidized surface is no longer remaining. It is extremely poor practice to produce that level of IGO on a part, and even worse to leave it on any surface that is heavily loaded, and the threads of a die case certainly qualify as that. The reduction in fatigue life will probably be on the order of 10x for that condition.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
Thank you for the response. It seems that this layer is definitely oxidation (intergranular). I just heard back from the vendor in Taiwan. Their response is "The threads on the inside diameter of die case are machined. Then we do the heat treatment. After that we will check the threads by gage. If the thread is undersized, we will machine it again with correct size. There is no surface coating applied on the die case. We found that the threads without re-machining are getting oxidized easier. Please let us know anything we have to do to improve the thread quality."
So it seems that they're aware of the problem but are still allowing them to be produced in such way. I am debating whether or not to send this out for EDS of the surface layer now that even the vendor mentions oxidation.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
If there are any financial or legal implications to your failure analysis, then I suggest having the EDS analysis performed. By this I mean if you are going to force the questionable supplier to pay for your lost production time, or to make some type of legal claim regarding the injured person, etc. If you just need to document the failure in your report, and your boss is going to complain about spending another $250-500 on outside testing services when your company has already been been burdened by this questionable supplier, then perhaps you want to omit this. Take a look at your ASM reference to see if there is a good photo of intergranular oxidation, it is likely in reference to gear heat treating, since the carburizing gas atmospheres in traditional furnaces are often oxidizing in nature. That should be sufficient as a reference, in addition to the expert opinions of a bunch of Internet yahoos that have weighed in on the matter.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
It stills bothers me that the failure location was strange as with any thread or material anomalies the threads will normally shell out at the entrance to the threads. If I/m looking at the micrograph's correctly the fatigue crack appears to take off at an angle, which to me would indicated a several overload and this coupled with the metallurgical notch initiated the crack. Though we haven't had a lot of fatigue failures with high strength bolting, H-11 or H-13, all were generally pure radial in direction from the root of the thread.
Please kept us informed on the progress and resolution of your failure.
bcc:
Getting to examine this failure in an SEM would be a very good exercise for your failure analysis career.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
TVP,
Hey, I appreciate all the experienced input from all you Internet yahoos very much. :)
unclesyd,
I would love to get some experience on an SEM but it's just not possible with my current position. I do agree that it's a must have area though and am trying to change that.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
The hardness that you measured coupled with the appearance of the tempered microstructure would indicate that the part may not have been thoroughly tempered. There is a way to verify this. I suggest that you contact your supplier and find out what austenitizing temperature and tempering temperatures were used, as well as the number of temper cycles that were performed – and be persistent. The first person you talk to may claim to know nothing about it, and if this is the case ask to speak to someone else who might. Someone there likely has that information, and it's just a matter of finding out their name and contact information. Please post any information you are able to locate on how this part was heat treated. As suggested by a previous member, you could perform an additional temper cycle at the specified tempering temperature. By examining the resulting re-tempered microstructure, you should be able to discern any difference from the microstructure you received. And by measuring the hardness you should be able to determine if executing an additional temper reduces the hardness so that it falls within your required range. If this is the case, then it suggests that the part was not adequately tempered. This would make the component more brittle, and therefore more susceptible to premature failure by crack propagation.
The initiation site for the fatigue crack shows that the cracks were initially growing at an angle to the direction of the applied stress, and then transitioned to growing perpendicular to the stress axis. This is indicative of a transition from Stage I (initiation) to Stage II (propagation) fatigue crack growth. Although this transition is often difficult to discern in steel alloys, the fatigue cracks generally initiate and coalesce from slip-plane fracture – they initially grow on the crystallographic planes where the fluctuating shear stresses are the greatest. And these are usually oriented roughly 45 degrees to the direction of the applied stress. After a relatively small amount of growth the fatigue cracks transition to growing perpendicular to the direction of the applied stress. For those who are interested, this is discussed to some degree in Chapter 16 "The Mechanical Durability of Metals and Alloys" in
htt
One way to eliminate the problem in the threads is to tap them after heat treatment has been completed. But this is often difficult to do in hardened parts, and your supplier may be unwilling or unable to do this. An alternative is to apply no-carb paint to the threads prior to heat treatment. This greatly reduces the formation of oxide on the surfaces of the parts. It also burns off during heat treatment, so there is little or no clean-up required after heat treatment is completed. Let us know what you find.
Maui
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
Getting to your specific question about sulfidation, we need a little more information. First, how did you obtain the bulk S composition, Leco method? Second, can you find out the exact type of EDS system that was used, and specifically ask how low in atomic number they can detect? Third, what is the sample orientation in the SEM image (is that a mounted specimen or free surface)? And fourth, can you find out whether a lubricant was used on the threads during assembly of the die, and if so, was it MoS2?
I still think that this is IGO, perhaps with some junk on the surface from extrusion oil, assembly lubricant, etc. As you remarked upon earlier, sulfidation is usually associated with significantly higher temperatures. The 400 C temperature is usually an instantaneous surface temperature at the tool-workpiece interface, with the temperature much lower than that in the die case where the threaded section is.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
All I know for now is that the independent lab does EDS with their SEM. The sample orientation is a mounted specimen I sent them. I will try and find out the other information and then respond ASAP.
In the meantime, and maybe this is a stupid question, but if this layer is mostly oxide then shouldn't the EDS results show that O was detected?
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
I just got a response that there was no lubrication used during the assembly of the die. It was mentioned that everything was assembled "dry".
Maui,
Just wanted to say thank you for the excellent response. Lots to think about and very educational. I appreciate it very much.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
Low atomic number elements like carbon and oxygen are not detectable by every EDS device, which is why TVP asked the question about the exact EDS system.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
Ok that makes sense. I learn lots from you guys. :)
I contacted the independent lab why I didn't see any oxygen in the results and he basically indicated what you just said. He said there was definitely O present but the accuracy couldn't really be proven. He gave me new results with O included and it looks like there is quite a bit. I've attached these results.
So, I'm not sure where this leaves me. Is there enough overall proof available now to back up the root cause 'most likely' being intergranular oxidation?
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
The independent lab said the following about their EDS:
"The EDS system we have is made by IXRF and is installed in our SEM. The lightest element we can detect is carbon."
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
I called and checked with a real machinist and a fellow who cuts single point threads for a living. The still use high Sulfur cutting oil with taps and dies and I confirmed that it is also used on single point threading for the tougher alloys. This could be your source for the high Sulfur., improperly cleaned parts prior to heat treating.
Maui
Appreciate the information. I haven't seen the initial propagation angle in numerous failures when had in some tool steel pistons with configuration similar to the component depicted in the OP. Our failures were the result of essentially two problems very bad metal and even worse heat treatment and machining and if that wasn't enough, the threaded rod was jacked against the bottom of the bolt hole. These pistons were also subject to thermal cycling.
Here is a link to to an excellant paper "Martensite and Retained Austenite"by "George F. Vander Voort" that brings up another point that is often overlooked in the function of retained austenite and untempered martensite in tool steels. This was a was a real problem in our case with H13 and to a lesser degree with H11, D2, and A2, as we cycled the heavily loaded parts quite often. This one reason I commented about looking at the area as posted above.
Addenda:
When I started work many years ago the company had a man in charge of the heat treating department whose last name was Voort.
http:
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
EDS has its limitations (as do all testing procedures), and reliable values for oxygen and carbon levels can be difficult to establish using this technique. And due to the manner of scale formation, there will likely be a gradient in the carbon, oxygen, and chromium levels as the EDS scans are taken from the outside surface toward the interior of the scale layer.
Coreman73, you're welcome. The oxidation that was detected on the surface of the threads appears to be high temperature oxidation that was formed during the austenitizing step of the heat treatment cycle. It is very unlikely that this surface oxide is responsible for causing the failure that you observed. The initiation and propagation of the fatigue crack more likely stems from an improperly tempered/undertempered microstructure in combination with the stress concentrations provided by the roots of the screw threads. This is the reason why I suggested taking a closer look at the tempered microstructure.
Maui
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
On a side note; if case hardening of the threads is not required, it is possible for the threads to be machined post heat treatment.
IMO, unless the pitch of the thread is sufficiently large, I don't think its sound design practice to carburize case harden any thread.
If your report is to include future recommendations; I would suggest a different way of manufacture to the supplier.
Ron Volmershausen
Brunkerville Engineering
Newcastle Australia
http://www.aussieweb.com.au/email.aspx?id=1194181
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
I did also include that it was very possible that tempering was insufficient based on hardness and structural appearance so will see what the manufacturer can do about that as well. Maui, I was not able to obtain all the information necessary from them regarding HT specifics so couldn't really pursue this avenue further. At least it was documented and can be evaulated later if necessary.
Thanks again to all!
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
There has been mention that some retained Austenite could be helpful in some cases. This is true unless you have a very high precision tool steel component with tight tolerance as this part will undergo dimensional growth and take up your tolerances. We have had this happen at different times on every tool steel we use. The old adage was to temper as many times as needed to stabilize you component. In the case of most tool steels you only convert 90% of the Austenite on the first temper and 90% of the remainder each time you temper again. When I first started work the only way to convert the Austenite to an acceptable level was repeat the tempering cycle until the the require level of Austenite was reached. One now has the luxury of a sub-cooling treatment to eliminate the endless tempering cycles as long as you temper at the higher temperature at lest twice. Even if the tool steel isn't required to have the precision you still need to temper at least twice.
RE: Failure analysis of die case (strange surface layer?)
I have done similar EDS investigations of high temperature corrosion using GR Petrology in Calgary (I have no business connections with them).
I believe unclesyd has suggested a very plausible explanation for the condition, especially if there are no other suspects in sight.