CHAPTER 7

FRICTION ANALYSIS

7.1 Introduction
Friction is a vital parameter affecting the quality of final formed products. Higher friction
during metalworking causes wear and tear easily and insufficient friction causes improper
forming due to slippage. Previous frictional analyses uses ring compression test to
determine friction coefficients [38,65]. In this chapter, friction coefficient is evaluated
with three methods:
a) Experimental method
b) Finite element analysis (FEA)
c) Slab analysis method

7.2 Methodology and Process Parameters Determination

The difficulty in the evaluation of frictional conditions during forming operations can be
determined through a series of tests. There have been numerous friction evaluation tests
conducted on the most widely used aluminum alloys [3, 31, 42, 45, 46], however works
on magnesium alloys are presently still uncommon.

7.2.1 Friction Calibration Curves (FCCs)

Experimental FCCs are obtained using ring compression tests. Figures 7.1 and 7.2 show
the friction calibration curves from 150C to 300C for AZ31 and AZ61. The ringcompression test was used as it has proven to be one of the best tests for quantitative
evaluation of friction. Several researchers have used these processes and the results of
122

their analysis were presented in the form of calibration curves for specific ring
geometries.

7.2.2 Slab Analysis Method

Solutions using analytical method such as slip-line field, upper or lower bound theories,
and slab method have been presented for many metal-forming problems by Avitzur [3]
and Johnson and Mellor [33]. However, due to the inherent difficulties in such analytical
methods, the applicability of the analytical solutions are limited to cases involving only
simple geometries and boundary conditions.

For slab analysis with friction, homogenous compression of a flat circular disk is used.
The analysis is simplified with the assumptions of no barreling of the disk and that the
thickness is small enough not to result in buckling. The friction on the top and bottom
faces of the disk are described by a constant coefficient of Coulomb friction
=
p

(7.2.1)

where = shearing stress at the interface; p = stress normal to the interface.

The selected quartet of the slab is illustrated in Figure 7.3(i), with equilibrium forces. The
slab analysis shows the equation of uniaxial ring compression as a function of the shear
stress (eq 7.2.1).
(r + dr) (r +dr)dh r rdh hdr d - 2 p d.dr = 0
Where simplifying and ignoring smaller terms:
r hdr d r. rh h dr + 2 p dr = 0
123

From axial symmetry of the disk, d = dr , and from levy-mises equation = r. The
equation is further simplified to
dr

2 p = 0
h

dr

(7.2.2)

By making the assumption that z, and r are principal stress and from the von-mises
yield criterion, a relation between z and r is obtained
2o = (z ) + ( r) + (r z)

o = (r z)
o = r z = r p

(7.2.3)

Let o = Y
Assuming compressive stress p is positive normal to the interface, then p = - z, and Y =
r + p, so that dr = - dp. Making these substitutions into 7.2.2 gives
dp = - 2dr
dr
p

(7.2.4)

Integrating yields
+ C
lnp = - dp
p

(7.2.5)

At the outer radius, the boundary conditions are, r = a, r = 0, and p = o (refer eq.7.2.3)

C = ln Y +

Substituting eq.7.2.6 in 7.2.5 gives

ln

2dp
p

P = 2 (a-r)
Y

124

(7.2.6)

(7.2.7)

2
h (a-r)

or

p=Ye

(7.2.8)

Figure 7.3(ii) shows the axial compressive stress from eq. 7.2.8 plotted over the diameter
of the disk. The pressure distribution is symmetrical about the centerline and rises to a
sharp peak at the center of the disk. This characteristic rise in deformation pressure with
distance is often called a friction hill.

The maximum pressure occurs at the centerline of the cylinder with r = 0, and the mean
pressure is given by

P=

P~

0 2 r ap dr
2a
1 + 3h Y

(7.2.9)

7.2.3 Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

FEA model simulation is computed using experimental data from the ring tests using
ANSYS software. The FEA model enables the user to determine final billet shape,
possible localized stresses or load areas that cause deterioration to the metal forming
processes. The friction model adopted in is governed by constant friction, = k. This
friction law occasionally results in overestimation of the frictional stresses at the toolworkpiece interface [56]. This phenomenon will be discussed in later sections.

Figure 7.4 shows a mesh using FEA simulation. Figures 7.5(i) to 7.5 (vi) show the
various stages of the ring simulation at 150C. Figures 7.6(i) to 7.6 (iv) show the F.C.C

125

curves for temperature ranging from 150C to 300C. The strength coefficient (k) and the
strain-hardening factor (n) are the main parameters used for F.E simulation. The k and n
values obtained during the ring compression tests are computed for both AZ31 and AZ61
wrought alloys. The FEA using the K and n values obtained provides a range of data such
as percentage change in internal diameter, stress-strain level, changes in height
deformation and pressure for plotting the FCCs. Different friction coefficients ranging
from 0.2 to 0.5 are used for the simulation and the results are compared with
experimental ones.

126

7.3 Discussion of Results

7.3.1 Effect of K and n values on FCCs
Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2 show the FCCs obtained from AZ31 and AZ61 ring test
experiments for a range of temperature. The results are similar to the earlier results
obtained on the billet compression.

The FCCs in Figure 7.1 and 7.2 show more than 60% decrease in internal diameter at
higher temperature. This is mainly due to the flow softening effect evident with lower
strength coefficient (Refer to Table 7.3). This effect is evident at 250C and 300C, the
FCCs for both AZ31 and AZ61 increases sharply, mainly caused by lower n values,
which allow the ease of deformation and lesser resistance during compression.

The decrease in K values demonstrated flow stress softening within the wrought
magnesium alloys. The effect of flow stress softening is less significant at 150C and
200C, therefore higher pressure is needed to overcome the resistance encountered during
upsetting. This is evident from the FCCs curves at 150C and 200C where these curves
do not increase as sharply as the curves at higher temperature. At 250C and 300C, the
lower K values as shown in table 7.3, leads to sharp increase in the FCCs, and this is
evident from the large ring deformation. As a result, the governing parameters for the
FCCs, such as the change in internal ring diameter and displacement in ring height is
linked by the K and n values. Similarly, findings from Tanaka et al also show how strainhardening factor affects friction coefficient. In his works, open die forging on hot steel is
conducted. Ring specimens are tested using plasticine model under several conditions in
order to simulate friction condition, and results shows the effect of the strain-hardening
127

exponent, n, of the ring materials with various frictional coefficients [65]. Table 7.3
shows constitutive equation using an average of 3 tests conducted at 200C, 250C and
300C.

Material AZ31

Power Law, = K

200C

= 73.06 0.50

250C

= 50.21 0.62

300C

= 41.99 0.53

(Average 3 tests)

Table 7.3. K and n factors at different temperatures.

7.3.2 Effect of Microstructural Behavior on FCCs

Results as shown in Table 7.4 are closely related to the microstructure analysis discussed
in chapter 5. At 150C and 200C, the AZ31 FCCs (See Figure 7.1) exhibit less change in
its height and barreling effect, therefore showing insignificant deformation. At higher
temperatures of 250C and 300C, the change in internal diameter (Y-axis) increases
significantly (See Table 7.4). It is seen from the microstructures that grain sizes for
150C are larger and less compressed, hence the shapes of ring specimens do not exhibit
large deformation. At higher temperatures, there is significant compression of the grains
and the ring deformed significantly. This is largely attributed to additional active slip
planes within the material. Hence, the characteristics of the FCCs are largely dependent
on the shape change of the ring specimens and their microstructure.

128

Height
AZ31 at 300C Ring Compression AZ61 at 300C Ring Compression
% Decrease in Internal Diameter % Decrease in Internal Diameter Displacement (%)
Y Axis on FCC
Y Axis on FCC
X axis on FCC
0
0
0
2.38
3.95
10
4.81
8.17
20
11.5
18.27
30
14.4
27.06
40
22.97
37.78
50
42.48
55.18
60
Table 7.4. Comparison on decrease in internal diameter (%) with height displacement (%)
between AZ31 and AZ61
7.3.3 Comparison between Experimental and FEA Results
Figure 7.7 shows the friction calibration curves using FEA simulation and experimental
results. The FCCs for FEA are based on certain values of K, n with of between 0.2 and
0.5 for F.E model generation on the slab. As it is difficult to obtain the friction coefficient
directly from the experiment, an indirect method is used. A close comparison between the
FEA and experimental FCCs would indicate the approximate values of the friction
coefficient. The results show clearly that different temperatures yield different set of
curves both experimentally and numerically. In almost all the plots, the experimental
friction curves have lower scatter than those of simulation. The barreling effect of the
experimental is also lower than the simulated ones, this is due to the fact that FEA
assumes ideal conditions and a homogenously compression. The uneven curves of the
experimental F.C.Cs are largely affected by inconsistencies in equipment setup and
varying microstructure behavior.

As shown in Figure 7.7(i) and Figure 7.7(ii), the AZ31 FCCs from both techniques
exhibit different curve profiles. However at 250C and 300C (See Figure 7.7(iii) and
129

Figure 7.7(iv)), both the experimental and FEA curves have similar behavior. The friction
curves for both techniques started with similar barreling effect and only begin to differ
towards the end. The experimental friction curves show slow increment towards the end
mainly due to compression limits within the material. On the other hand, the F.E
simulated curves continue to rise with homogenous barreling effect.

The FCCs obtained experimentally exhibited lower barreling parameters (e.g. less
percentage change in ring height). This is explained by the Wanheim-Bay friction effect.
In the Wanheim-Bay friction model [5], the simulation from finite element produced at
least a 50% higher friction factor. This is explained by the moderate pressure involved in
the ring test leading to lower friction, when using the Wanheim-Bay friction model. The
characteristic of pressure distribution is discussed using the Slab analysis in section 7.2.3.
The lower experimental curves can also be explained from the strain hardening effect.
The strain rate is reasonably constant over the region of radially outward flow, but
increases rapidly towards the inward flow region. Hence, the rate of strain hardening is
greater towards the contracting bore. The increase resistance to flow at the bore tends to
decrease the rate of contraction and the calibration curve is modified. Therefore, a
material with greater strain hardening over a large range of strain would show greater
divergence from the theoretical curve on reaching the full strain hardening condition [31].

In Figure 7.8(i), it is seen that at 60% height deformation, the change in internal ring
diameter (%) at 150C experimental results show more than 35% deviation from the FEA
model while at 300C, the results differ at a smaller difference of 10% (See Figure
7.8(ii)). Earlier discussion in 7.3.1 shows that for a ring specimen during forging, strain
130

hardening does affect the barreling characteristics. However the FEA results show that
strain hardening has a less significant effect which is due to the homogenous
deformation. Both experimental and theoretical results also show similar friction
behaviors at higher forging temperatures and demonstrate that parameters such as
materials barreling, surface expansions, height deformation, K (strength coefficient) and
n (strain hardening factor) values are contributing factors in the determination of the
frictional characteristics.

7.3.4 Determination of Friction Coefficient ()

Figure 7.9 shows the calculated values obtained using both FEA and slab analysis. The
slab analysis parametric uses values that are obtained from experimental compression
tests.

For AZ31 alloy at 10% height upsetting, the FEA model shows a high friction at 0.62,
compared to the slab model. This result corresponds to the earlier discussed WanheimBay model. The lower values obtained from experiment show that moderate pressure
during compression leads to less significant deformation, hence exhibiting lower
percentage decreases in internal diameter and therefore, lowers values.

For values above 30% upsetting, almost similar values are obtained for both models. At
60% upsetting, there is a discrepancy of only 0.01. Hence, the slab model demonstrates
effectiveness in determining the friction coefficient at higher upsetting (> 30%). The slab
model used to calculate the friction coefficient for AZ61 shows similar results as AZ31.

131

A complete set of AZ31 and AZ61 experimental results are tabulated as shown in
Appendix A7.3.2iii.
%Decrease

AZ31 Experimental at 300C

AZ31 Finite Element at 300C

in height

Radius after Deformation (ao)

Radius after Deformation (ao)

10

18.34

0.42

12.42

0.62

20

19.09

0.34

14.02

0.46

30

19.59

0.27

15.96

0.33

40

20.18

0.21

18.45

0.23

50

20.87

0.15

22.03

0.14

60

22.35

0.10

26.23

0.09

Table 7.5 Friction coefficients between Slab Analysis and Finite Element Analysis.

7.3.4.1 Effect of Barreling

This section discusses the barreling effect on the friction coefficient in ring compression.

Using (Appendix A7.3.2iv)

P = Y. ao

Ho

1+

2 ()
3________

Ho / ao

Ho

3
2

The barreling effect is distinctly controlled by dimensional changes namely, ao and h. In

Figure 7.9, it is observed that a slight dimensional change on the ring leads to a relatively
large shift on the frictional coefficient. A 0.08 increment in the friction coefficient is
observed for upsetting from 10% to 20%. For higher deformation, an increase of 0.05 is
observed. The smaller frictional shift at the final stages of upsetting is due to
homogenous strain hardening as explained in section 7.3.1. Hence the results show that
barreling effect is significant in influencing friction coefficient.

132

At higher upsetting, ao (deformed ring radius) increases, and resulted in lower friction
coefficients compared to initial deformation. A lower frictional coefficient of 0.1 is
observed at 60% upsetting for both AZ31 and AZ61. The FEA model also shows a
similar friction coefficient of 0.1. Hence, friction coefficients of 0.1 to 0.2 are
consistently achieved using both experimental and FEA, at higher upsetting percentage.

The results for both the alloys demonstrate that consistent results for friction coefficient
and barreling effect are obtained at larger deformation of more than 30% upsetting. The
FEA simulation also shows F.C.Cs which correspond well with experimental curves at
higher temperatures. Hence, it is evident that the wrought alloys demonstrate stability at
higher temperatures, particularly at 250C and 300C ring compression test. Results on
friction coefficients also show that for both experimental and FEA simulation, similar
values at higher deformation and temperatures (250C and 300C) are obtained (See
Table 7.5), especially at 60% deformation.

133

60
Decrease Internal Diameter (%)

150Deg C

50

200Deg C

40

250Deg C
300Deg C

30
20
10
0
0%
0

10%
10

20%
20

30%
30

40%
40

Height Change (%)

Figure 7.1. Combined AZ31FCCs over a range of temperatures.

134

50%
50

60%
60

70%
70

AZ61_Friction calibration curves

%Decrease Internal Diameter

60

150Deg C
200Deg C
250Deg C
300Deg C

50
40
30
20
10
0
0%
0

10%
10

20%
20

30%
30

40%
40

Height Change (%)

Figure 7.2. Combined AZ61 FCCs over a range of temperatures.

135

50%
50

60%
60

70%
70

Slab Selection

r + dr

mk
H
a
r

mk

Figure 7.3(i) Slab selection on a ring specimen.

136

max
P
max
Friction Hill

0o

r
a

Figure 7.3(ii). Friction hill for homogenous compression of a disk with Coulomb friction.

137

Figure 7.4 Ring diameter after compression. Nodes 1000 3836 show dimension of the ring.

138

Figure 7.5(i). Finite element model indicating 10% deformation of a ring specimen.

Figure 7.5(ii). Finite element model indicating 20% deformation of a ring specimen.

139

Figure 7.5(iii). Finite element model indicating 30% deformation of a ring specimen.

Figure 7.5(iv) Finite element model indicating 40% deformation of a ring specimen.

140

Figure 7.5(v). Finite element model indicating 50% deformation of a ring specimen.

Figure 7.5(vi). Finite element model indicating 60% deformation of a ring specimen.

141

Decrease in internal Diameter (%)

70
60
50
40

150
150 uu 0.2
= 0.2
1150
50 uu 0.3
= 0.3

30

1150
50 uu 0.4
= 0.4
1150
50 uu 0.5
= 0.5

20
10
0
0

20

40
Height Change (%)

Figure 7.6(i). FCCs plots with AZ31alloy at 150C.

142

60

80

Decrease in internal Diameter (%)

70
60
50
u=0.2
u=0.3
u=0.4
u=0.5

40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

Height Change (%)

Figure 7.6(ii). FCCs plots with AZ31alloy tested at 200C.

143

50

60

70

Decrease in internal Diameter (%)

70
60
50

u=0.2
u=0.3
u=0.4
u=0.5

40
30
20
10
0
0

20

40
Height Change (%)

Figure 7.6(iii). FCCs plots with AZ31alloy tested at 250C.

144

60

80

Decrease in internal Diameter (%)

70
60
50
u=0.2
u=0.3
u=0.4
u=0.5

40
30
20
10
0
0

20

40

60

Height Change (%)

Figure 7.6(iv). FCCs plots using FEA with AZ31alloy tested at 300C.

145

80

70
Expmt 150

F.E simulated F.C.C

F.E.A 150 u 0.2

60

F.E.A 150 u 0.3

Decrease in internal Diameter (%)

F.E.A 150 u 0.4

F.E.A 150 u 0.5

50
40

Experimental F.C.C

30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

Decrease in height (%)

Figure 7.7 (i). Experimental vs. F.E.A friction curves at 150C.

146

50

60

70

F.E simulated F.C.C

Expmt 200

70

F.E.A 200 u 0.2

F.E.A 200 u 0.3

Decrease in internal Diameter (%)

60

F.E.A 200 u 0.4

F.E.A 200 u 0.5

50
40

Experimental F.C.C

30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

Decrease in height (%)

Figure 7.7 (ii). Experimental vs. F.E.A friction curves at 200C.

147

50

60

70

F.E simulated F.C.C

70
Expmt 250
F.E.A 250 u 0.2

Decrease in internal Diameter (%)

60

F.E.A 250 u 0.3

F.E.A 250 u 0.4

50

Experimental F.C.C

F.E.A 250 u 0.5

40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

Decrease in height (%)

Figure 7.7 (iii). Experimental vs. F.E.A friction curves at 250C.

148

50

60

70

Expmt 300

70

F.E simulated F.C.C

F.E.A 300 u 0.2

F.E.A 300 u 0.3

Decrease i internal Diameter (%)

60

F.E.A 300 u 0.4

Experimental F.C.C

F.E.A 300 u 0.5

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

Decrease in height (%)

Figure 7.7 (iv). Experimental vs. F.E.A friction curves at 300C.

149

50

60

70

Decrease in internal Diameter (%)

70

Expmt 150DegC
60

F.E.A 150DegC u=0.2

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Decrease in height (%)

Figure 7.8(i). Percentage difference between FEA and Experimental Model at 150C.

(%)ecrease in internal diameter

70
60

Experiment 300DegC
F.E.A 300DegC u 0.2

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Decrease in height (%)

Figure 7.8(ii). Percentage difference between FEA and Experimental Model at 300C.

150

Slab Analysis on AZ31

0.70

Slab Analysis on AZ61

F.E Model

0.60

Friction coefficient

0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Deformed Radius (mm)

Figure 7.9 Friction coefficient values obtained from FEA and slab analysis for AZ31 at 300C.

151

24

26

28

AZ31 with Instron Preload 2KN Dimension (Ext.Dia x 18mm Int.Dia x 9mm
Height x 6mm)
Constant Speed 2.54mm/min.
Results below show averages of 3 tests for compression at 250C
%

Final Ht

% Change

Ext.

%Change

Int.

%Change

10

5.64

6.16

18.37

2.03

8.81

2.12

20

5.29

12.72

18.76

4.25

8.78

2.47

30

4.50

25.27

19.68

9.32

8.13

9.67

40

4.04

33.39

20.41

13.38

7.45

17.17

50

3.6

38.9

21.04

16.88

6.79

24.55

60

3.25

46.19

21.97

22.06

5.76

36.05

Table 7.1(i) Test parameters for AZ31 ring compression tests.

AZ61 with Instron Preload 2KN Dimension (Ext.Dia x 18mm Int.Dia x 9mm
Height x 6mm)
Constant Speed 2.54mm/min.
Results below show averages of 3 tests for compression at 250C
%

Final Ht

% Change

Ext.

%Change

Int.

%Change

10

5.74

5.52

18.24

1.34

8.82

2.05

20

5.23

14.06

18.83

4.58

8.39

6.81

30

4.40

27.21

19.71

9.48

7.61

15.50

40

4.18

30.97

20.14

11.90

7.01

22.10

50

3.59

40.71

21.08

17.11

5.95

33.87

60

3.20

47.28

22.44

22.44

4.66

48.21

Table 7.1(ii) Test parameters for AZ61 ring compression tests.

*The complete set of ring test data for 200C, 250C, 300C are tabulated in Appendix
4.4vi to A4.4x.

152

% Height Deformation

% Change in Internal Diameter (Ave of 3 tests)

10% = 0.6mm

1.12

20% = 1.2mm

1.78

30% = 1.8mm

4.64

40% = 2.4mm

9.24

50% = 3.0mm

17.51

60% = 3.6mm

24.99

Table 7.1(iii) Parameters for plotting Friction Calibration Curves (FCCs)

%

AZ61

ao

ao

10 18.24 0.42

10 18.37 0.42

20 18.83 0.34

20 18.76 0.34

250C 30 19.71 0.27 AZ31

250C 30 19.68 0.27

40 20.14 0.21

40 20.41 0.20

50 21.08 0.15

50 21.04 0.15

60 22.04 0.10

60 21.97 0.10

Table 7.2 Friction coefficients determine by Slab Analysis for both alloys.
*The complete sets of Slab analysis results are tabulated in Appendix A7.3.2i and
A7.3.2ii.

153