This article describes the characteristics of tools and dies and the causes of their failures. It discusses the failure mechanisms in tool and die materials that are important to nearly all manufacturing processes, but is primarily devoted to failures of tool steels used in cold-working and hot-working applications. It reviews problems introduced during mechanical design, materials selection, machining, heat treating, finish grinding, and tool and die operation. The brittle fracture of rehardened high-speed steels is also considered. Finally, failures due to seams or laps, unconsolidated interiors, and carbide segregation and poor carbide morphology are reviewed with illustrations.

Several failed dies were analyzed and the results were used to evaluate fatigue damage models that have been developed to predict die life and aid in design and process optimization. The dies used in the investigation were made of H13 steels and fractured during the hot extrusion of Al-6063 billet material. They were examined to identify critical fatigue failure locations, determine corresponding stresses and strains, and uncover correlations with process parameters, design features, and life cycle data. The fatigue damage models are based on Morrow’s stress and strain-life models for flat extrusion die and account for bearing length, fillet radius, temperature, and strain rate. They were shown to provide useful information for the analysis and prevention of die failures.

This article describes the six fundamental factors that decide a tool's performance. These are mechanical design, grade of tool steel, machining procedure, heat treatment, grinding, and handling. A deficiency in any one of the factors can lead to a tool and die failure. The article presents a seven-step procedure to be followed when looking for the reason for a failure. A review of the results of the seven-point investigation may lead directly to the source of failure or narrow the field of investigation to permit the use of special tests.

Two 38 mm (1.5 in.) diam threaded stud bolts that were part of a steel mold die assembly from a plastics molding operation were examined to determine their serviceability. Chemical analysis showed the material to be a plain carbon steel that approximated 1045. Visual examination revealed evidence of severe hammer blows to the clevis and boss areas and a gap between the die and the underside of the boss. Magnetic particle inspection showed cracks at the thread roots that, when examined metallographically, were found to contain MnS stringers. The cracking of the threads was attributed to a poor stud bolt design, which allowed a high stress concentration to occur at the base of the threads upon application of a lateral load. It was recommended that bolts of a new design that incorporated a stress-relieving groove be used. Threading of the bolt to eliminate the gap between the lower face of the boss and the die and an improved method of inserting or removing the bolt to avoid hammering (use of a wrench on a square or hexagonal boss) were also recommended.

This article discusses failure mechanisms in tool and die materials that are very important to nearly all manufacturing processes. It is primarily devoted to failures of tool steels used in cold working and hot working applications. The processes involved in the analysis of tool and die failures are also covered. In addition, the article focuses on a number of factors that are responsible for tool and die failures, including mechanical design, grade selection, steel quality, machining processes, heat treatment operation, and tool and die setup.

Some 99.90 pure tin tubes (0.15 mm thick) used for packaging a chemical compound cracked on bending and underwent brittle fracture prior to filling, while others remained ductile and showed no sign of failure. Examination showed that specimens prepared by mechanical methods such as electrolytic and hand polishing and the vibration method resulted in poor edge and crack edge definition due to material thickness. Etching experiments involved a grain surface attack and hence produced a rather strong surface relief from which the grain boundary cracks could again not clearly be differentiated. The sections were therefore examined unetched in polarized light. The microstructure of the cracked tubes was shown to have much smaller grains than the ductile and showed cracks from the surface down along the grain boundaries. Material hardness also differed between the unusable tubes and the ductile, and chemical analysis showed a higher level of aluminum in the brittle specimens. Failure obviously occurred due to the high material aluminum content that increased hardness which then caused embrittlement at the surface which led to cracks or fracture on bending. Since no explanation of how the aluminum entered the tin was available, no recommendations could be made.