Effect of Cu and die geometry on the extrudability of AA6xxx Alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of extrusion trials were conducted with AA6xxx aluminum alloys with different Copper (Cu) levels to understand the influence of alloy content, die geometry, extrusion ratio and extrusion process parameters (ram speed) on surface cracking and extrudability. In addition, a mathematical model was developed of the extrusion process to complement the experimental trials and provide quantitative information on the thermal mechanical history experienced by the material as a way to help understand the linkages between the extrusion process history, the microstructure formed and surface cracking. \nThe extrusion trials were conducted at Rio Tinto’s facility in Jonquiere, Quebec using their instrumented extrusion press to produce an extruded rod. In these trials, dies with different die bearing geometries and different extrusion ratios were used and the ram speed was increased until surface cracking occurred. These trials were conducted for two (0.6% and 0.9%) of the three different compositions of AA6xxx aluminum alloys with different levels of Cu. \nThe experimental results indicate that die geometry significantly affects surface morphology and crack occurrence. The trials with dies with different die bearing geometries, reveals that choked dies enabled crack-free extrusion at higher speeds, particularly the 12 mm choked die with a 1° angle, outperforming the 25 mm flat die and zero-bearing die. The 35 mm choked die achieved crack-free extrusion even at maximum press speed, yielding smoother surfaces than the other dies. The trials using dies with a higher extrusion ratio generate surface cracks at a lower extrusion speed than the trials using dies with a lower extrusion ratio; this has to do with the higher temperatures that occur at these higher extrusion speeds due to a great amount of work imparted to the material. Finally, the material with higher Cu addition shows surface cracks occur at a lower extrusion speed compared to the material with lower Cu addition. \nThe mathematical model of the extrusion process was developed using the commercial Finite Element Method (FEM) package DEFORMTM 2D. The results from the model predictions were verified by comparing them to the measured extrusion load and temperature. Using a combination of model results and experimental measurements a threshold was determined by analyzing the tensile stress and temperature on the extrudate surface, beyond which surface cracking occurs for different die geometries. This threshold can also be applied to the effect of Cu on the surface cracking. However, for the effect of Cu, the temperature in the extrusion process plays a more important role in surface cracking occurrence. \nFinally, the extrusion limit diagrams were also constructed based on both the simulation results and the extrusion trial data. The extrusion limit diagram shows the influence of the die bearing geometry, extrusion ratio and Cu content and provide guidance for choosing appropriate extrusion parameters for future studies. \n
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".