j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec

A computational method to predict strip prole

in rolling mills

Arif S. Malik , Ramana V. Grandhi

Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Wright State University,
209 Russ, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Presented is a new computational method for predicting the static cross-sectional thickness
Received 3 October 2007 prole of rolled metal strip. Methods to model the strip prole and related atness with
Received in revised form improved efciency and accuracy remain central for achieving high quality at-rolled prod-
19 November 2007 ucts. The new method involves a novel combination of Timoshenko beam nite elements
Accepted 6 December 2007 with multiple coupled Winkler elastic foundations. It applies to simple mill congura-
tions, such as the common 4-high rolling mill, in addition to complex mill types, such
as the 20-high Sendzimir mill. The inherent benets over traditional strip prole mod-
Keywords: els include non-discrete elastic foundations, cubic displacement elds, rapid solution, and
Rolling mill mixed boundary conditions. The exible nature of the model allows it to readily accommo-
Strip prole date typical mechanisms used in industry to control strip prole, such as roll crowning,
Crown roll bending, roll shifting, and roll crossing. Comparison of the predicted displacement
Flatness for a 4-high mill with that obtained using a large-scale nite element simulation pro-
Mathematical model vides validation of the presented strip prole calculation method for real-time industrial
applications.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.1. Dimensional quality requirements for rolled metal

To remain viable in a highly competitive global market, met-
als manufacturers must embrace new technologies to increase
the quality of rolled metal products, including steel, alu-
minum, titanium, copper, and brass. In response to this need,
presented is a new mathematical method to efciently cal-
culate the cross-sectional thickness prole of rolled metal
strip, an important dimensional quality attribute of at-rolled
metals. The new method is suitable for application with real-
time computer systems for predicting and controlling the strip
thickness prole.
strip
The rolling operation is characterized by incidental elastic
deection of the mill housing, rolls, bearings, and other com-
ponents occurring simultaneously with the elasticplastic
deection of the rolled strip. These combined deections fre-
quently lead to a non-uniform reduction in the thickness
of the rolled strip, and hence a non-uniform nal thick-
ness prole, as indicated for example in Fig. 1. Many factors
inuence the evolution of a given strip prole, including the
mill conguration, operating loads, prole control devices,

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 937 620 7329; fax: +1 937 775 5082.
E-mail address: arif.malik@wright.edu (A.S. Malik).
0924-0136/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.12.026
264 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274

Fig. 3 Common strip atness defect classications.

Fig. 1 Cross-sectional strip thickness prole (exaggerated).

and the incoming strip prole from a prior rolling operation.

Although the general convex prole of Fig. 1 occurs most often,
other arbitrary proles are possible, including concave types,
depending on the prole control settings and other parame-
ters.
A commonly used metric to quantify the strip prole is the
strip crown, denoted C(x). The strip crown is dened as the
difference between the thickness, H(0), at the strip center, and
the thickness, H(x), at an arbitrary location x, as indicated in
the following equation

C(x) = H(0) H(x) (1) Fig. 4 Examples of cluster-type (20-high) and

non-cluster-type (4-high) rolling mills.
Because of end-user requirements to evaluate the differ-
ence in strip thickness at the center and edges, respectively, it
is customary to calculate an average strip crown at a small
tion of the strip is incompressible and expansion of the strip
distance from the two edges of the strip. When this refer-
width is usually negligible, particularly in the cold rolling pro-
ence distance, indicated as a in Fig. 1, is 25 mm, the resulting
cess. Fig. 2 illustrates a certain type of atness defect during
crown metric is known as C25 crown. Control of the strip pro-
the rolling of austenitic stainless steel. This type of defect
le usually requires maintaining a target relative strip crown,
is known as center buckle, since the center portion of the
CR(x), which is the ratio of the strip crown to a reference value,
strip width contains buckles due to excessive plastic deforma-
typically the strip center thickness, H(0).
tion in the middle of the strip width. Other common atness
An equally important dimensional quality parameter of
manifestations include wavy edges, quarter buckles, and
at-rolled metals is the strip atness or shape. Whereas
herringbones, as depicted in Fig. 3.
crown is the variation in thickness across the strip width, at-
ness is the variation in length across the strip width. Crown
1.2. Need for an efcient and exible model
and atness are strongly related since the plastic deforma-

Manufacturers undertake various measures to control the pro-

le and atness and achieve the desired dimensional quality
of rolled metal strip. These measures may include employing
atness control systems, designing optimal pass schedules,
or utilizing roll crowns. Since the foregoing measures benet
from a rapid and accurate calculation of the strip thick-
ness prole, more efcient computational models provide a
competitive operational advantage. As discussed next, the
conventional strip prole calculation methods do not compute
the strip thickness prole with adequate efciency and accu-
racy. Furthermore, few of the existing computational methods
are exible enough to model cluster-type rolling mills such as
the 20-high Sendzimir mill shown in Fig. 4.

2. Conventional strip prole computation

methods

Fig. 2 Center-buckle type atness defect in stainless steel Various methods for developing static strip prole calculation
rolling. models have been used over the past 40 years. These methods
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274
may be classied broadly as either: the single-beam on elastic
foundation method (Stone and Gray, 1965); the inuence coef-
cient method (Shohet and Townsend, 1968, 1971; Hacquin
et al., 1994); the transport matrix method (Poplawski and
Seccombe, 1980; Guo, 1998); the pattern recognition/heuristics
methods (Hattori et al., 1993; Zhu et al., 1993; Jung and Im,
1997); and the large-scale nite element method (Eibe, 1984;
Chen and Zhou, 1987). Although each method has unique
advantages, none satises the combined requirements for an
efcient, accurate, and exible model capable of simulating
complex mill congurations. Stones work studied the effects
of work roll bending and back-up roll bending to control strip
crown on 4-high rolling mills. In evaluating the effect of work
roll bending on strip prole, Stone modeled the work roll as
a single EulerBernoulli beam on a constant elastic founda-
tion that represented the mutual attening between the work
roll and the back-up roll. Hence, no independent shear or
bending deection of the back-up roll was considered. Shohet
and Townsends inuence coefcient method employs a dis-
cretized Greens function to superpose the effects of multiple
point loads for the purpose of representing load distributions.
Point matching is utilized to satisfy equilibrium and compat-
ibility conditions at a nite number of discrete points along the
interfaces between the contacting rolls. The method assumes
initial arbitrary force distributions between contacting bodies
and uses an iterative procedure to adjust the force distribu-
tions to satisfy the point matching. Several improvements and
enhancements have been made to this popular method over
the nearly four decades that it has been used. For instance,
Kuhn and Weinstein (1970) modied the method to consider
the Poisson deection due to axial bending stresses. Indenta-
tion attening at the interface between the work roll and the
strip was considered using Boussinesqs theory by Kono (1983),
then by Tozawa (1984). Semi-empirical methods to model the
work roll and strip interaction were employed by Nakajima
and Matsumoto (1973). Matsubara et al. (1989) applied the
inuence coefcient method to predict the case of mutual con-
tact between upper and lower work rolls during the rolling of
foil. Gunawardene et al. (1981) used the method to solve for
the 20-high cluster mill using an equivalent stack of vertically
aligned rolls, and Ogawa et al. (1991) extended the method to
model 12-high rolling mills.
Due to the inherent complexity of cluster-type rolling mills,
which have multiple roll contacting surfaces and require both
horizontal and vertical roll displacement calculations, there
have been far fewer instances of adapting the conventional
strip crown models to them. For this reason, non-physics-
based models, derived from pattern recognition/heuristics
methods such as neural networks and fuzzy techniques,
have been applied to cluster mills in greater relative num-
bers. Although the inuence coefcient method and transport
matrix method have been used to simulate cluster-type rolling
mills in some cases, these methods lead to complex models
with limited opportunity for industrial application. Another
disadvantage of some conventional strip crown models is that
their solution time is not sufcient for real-time mill con-
trol. The inuence coefcient method, which has been the
most widely studied, requires an iterative solution to satisfy
equilibrium and compatibility conditions. Although the trans-
port matrix method was extended to cluster mills, because
265
of the large number of rolls and contact surfaces, it is not
fast enough for real-time control (Guo and Malik, 2005). The
large-scale nite element method (FEM) is the most prohibitive
of all in terms of solution time because of the vast number
of elements required to model the narrow contact interfaces
between adjacent rolls and between the working rolls and
the strip. Moreover, convergence difculties associated with
contact-type structural FEM analyses pose additional solution
problems.
The accuracy of the conventional methods may be
examined from a theoretical viewpoint. The pattern recogni-
tion/heuristics models may be accurate if adequately trained
with signicant amounts of manufacturing data. The accuracy
of both the inuence coefcient method and the transport
matrix method depends on a large number of discretization
nodes. As accuracy is improved by increasing the node count,
solution time also increases. Another factor adversely affect-
ing the theoretical accuracy of the transport matrix method
is its use of discrete nodal springs to represent the contact
interactions between adjacent rolls and between the working
rolls and the strip. Cook et al. (2002) highlighted the risk of
using discrete springs in lieu of continuous elastic foundations
and their particular difculty in modeling contact interactions
near component ends.
It is widely recognized that the rolling operation is dynamic
in nature due to, for example, changes with respect to time
of yield stress, temperature, friction coefcient, rolling force,
rolling speed, and geometric parameters of the strip. Despite
this, static models to predict the steady-state strip thick-
ness prole, based on a snapshot of the input parameters,
are widely used for pass-schedule setup and atness control
systems. In the case of pass-schedule setup, this circum-
stance prevails because the pass-schedule calculations are
used to assign nominal set-point values for thickness reduc-
tions, rolling speed, and entry/exit tensions. Flatness control
algorithms operate at command frequencies on the order of
1 Hzseveral orders of magnitude lower than the dynamic
response of the mill to atness actuation. The control fre-
quencies for atness control therefore render static transfer
functions sufcient. Thickness (gauge) control systems, on the
other hand, operate at much higher frequencies and require
attention to the dynamic response. To account for the dynamic
nature of the rolling operation when calculating the strip
thickness prole, measured values of rolling parameters are
continually applied to the static model in order to update the
steady-state thickness prole response. The method to predict
strip prole presented in this work employs a global stiffness-
based linear system, and can therefore, if required, be used
together with an appropriate mass matrix to predict dynamic
responses of the rolling mill using well-known methods.
3. A new method to calculate strip crown
Presented is a new technique to model the static deection
of the rolling mill components and compute the strip thick-
ness prole. The new method combines the conventional
nite element method with analytical solid mechanics and
is applicable to cluster-type mill congurations such as the
20-high Sendzimir mill. In addition, it accommodates the
266 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274

Fig. 5 Upper section of 4-high rolling mill modeled as

Timoshenko beams with multiple, coupled, continuous
elastic foundations.

Fig. 6 Angle of inclination, , for modeling cluster-type

typical crown control mechanisms used in industry. The gen- rolling mills (roll end view).
eral nonlinear, multi-component contact problem is solved
by creating a global stiffness-based linear system that sim-
ulates the rolling mill deection in the vicinity of a given
following equation
operating point. A global stiffness system is constructed by
combining conventional Timoshenko beam nite elements  
1,2,i
[K1,i ] [0]
with multiple-coupled Winkler elastic foundations (Malik, [K ]= (3)
2007; Malik and Grandhi, 2007). The method uses continuous [0] [K2,i ]
elastic foundations and third-order displacement functions
rather than discrete nodal springs and piecewise linear dis- where [K1,i ] and [K2,i ] are conventional 12 12 Timoshenko
placement elds. beam element stiffness matrices for beams 1 and 2, respec-
tively. Matrix [KF1,2,i ] in Eq. (2) represents the elastic coupling
between beams 1 and 2, as given in the following equation
3.1. Development of the linear static model
 L   L 
In this section, the necessary equations for constructing the k(x) F11 (x) dx k(x) F12 (x) dx

[KF1,2,i ] = 
strip prole model are given. Derivation of the method and 0 0

its associated equations are provided in the following section.

The model is constructed as shown in Fig. 5: individual rolls
are represented by one or more Timoshenko beam elements,
and the contact interactions among them are represented
by continuous linear elastic foundations. These foundations
characterize the distributed load versus deection behavior
between roll axis centers, and may be determined from solid
mechanics, experiment, or large-scale nite element simu-
lations. Plane strain analytical relationships governing the
behavior between load and deection for cylindrical bodies
in lengthwise contact may incorporate Hertzian or other pres-
sure distributions. Various analytical solutions for cylinders
in contact were provided by Foppl (1933), Johnson (1985), and
Matsubara et al. (1989).
The strip prole model is a global, stiffness-based linear
system, [K]u = f, where [K] is the stiffness matrix, u is the vec-
tor of nodal displacements (up to six per node), and f is the
load vector. Stiffness matrix contributions for an element i
combine individual Timoshenko beams with coupled founda-
tion elements of arbitrary beams 1 and 2, as in the following
equation
[KT1,2,i ] = [K1,2,i ] + [KF1,2,i ]
Matrix [K1,2,i ] in Eq. (2) incorporates the beam stiffness con-
tributions for element i of beams 1 and 2, as indicated in the
 L   L (4)
k(x) F21 (x) dx k(x) F22 (x) dx
0 0
If the elastic foundation moduli, k(x), in Eq. (4) involve poly-
nomial expressions, the integrals over the element length L
may be evaluated rapidly by Gauss quadrature. Terms Fpq in
Eq. (4) for p = 1 and 2 and q = 1 and 2 are dened according to
Eq. (5):
T
Fpq = Nvp Nvq sin2  + Nwp
T
Nwq cos2 
T T
+Nvp Nwq sin  cos  + Nwp Nvq sin  cos  (5)
Here, Nvn and Nwn (for n = 1 and 2) are the vertical and hor-
izontal shape function submatrices of the full third-order
Timoshenko beam element shape function matrix given by
Bazoune and Khulief (2003). The angle  in Eq. (5) represents
the inclination of beam 2 with respect to beam 1 as shown in
Fig. 6. Inclusion of  allows straightforward consideration of
complex cluster-type mill congurations, such as the 20-high
Sendzimir mill. Note that if  varies with axial position x, based
on initial mill geometry or the displacement results from a
prior calculation,  may either be expressed as an explicit
(2) function of x in Eq. (5), or  may simply be assigned a differ-
ent constant value for each coupling foundation element. The
latter case leads to simpler integration of the coupling foun-
dation elements, but possible problems with discontinuities
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274 267

when using large nodal spacing and large changes in the value Based on the coordinate geometry of Fig. 7, the terms sn (x), for
of  between elements. n = 1 and 2, are
In the presented method, degrees of freedom u repre-
 
senting lateral (axial) displacement of the rolls and strip are   vn (x)
sn (x) = sin  cos  (10)
constrained. For the case of large strip width to thickness ratio, wn (x)
as in cold rolling processes, the lateral displacement of the
strip is usually so small it is neglected. In hot rolling processes, It follows that the term [s1 (x) s2 (x)]2 in Eq. (9) can be writ-
where the strip width to thickness ratio is lower, lateral slip- ten as
ping of the strip usually occurs near its edges in the form of
width expansion. With regard to the strip prole, the width 2
 
[s1 (x) s2 (x)] = (v1 (x) v2 (x)) (w1 (x) w2 (x))
expansion has the effect of reducing the foundation moduli
  
of the strip, k(x), near its edges. The effect of slip on strip pro- sin2  sin  cos  v1 (x) v2 (x)

le is thus accounted for by the presented method since the sin  cos  cos2  w1 (x) w2 (x)
foundation modulus k can be a function of x. (11)

3.2. Derivation of the linear static model

Consider a single beam of unit width and length L in the xy
plane on a xed Winkler elastic foundation. For a given y-
displacement eld, v(x), the additional potential energy of the
system, UF , due to the elastic foundation is provided by Cook
If one denotes the nodal displacement vector of the nth
beam as dn , and recall that vn (x) = Nvn dn and wn (x) = Nwn dn
for n = 1 and 2, Eq. (11) can be written in terms of nodal dis-
placements as
2
 
et al. (2002) and is restated in the following equation [s1 (x) s2 (x)] = (Nv1 d1 Nv2 d2 ) (Nw1 d1 Nw2 d2 )
   
1
L sin2  sin  cos  Nv1 d1 Nv2 d2
UF = k(x) v(x) dx
2
(6)
2 sin  cos  cos2  Nw1 d1 Nw2 d2
0
(12)
Since the continuous displacement function, v(x), is equal
to the product of the vertical displacement shape function
matrix, Nv (x), and the y-direction nodal displacement vector, It is important to note that for Timoshenko beam elements
dv , the foundation energy UF can be written as in general, Nv1 = Nv2 and Nw1 = Nw2 because the shape func-
tion matrices are dependent on the geometric and material
 L properties of beams 1 and 2, respectively, due to the presence
1 T
UF = d k(x) NvT Nv dx dv (7) of shear-strain terms. The corresponding Winkler foundation
2 v 0
element stiffness matrix for the case of two beams with a cou-
pling elastic foundation can be identied upon expansion of
The corresponding Winkler foundation element stiffness
Eq. (12) and substitution of the result into Eq. (9). The operation
matrix contribution, [KFv ], is
yields (Eq. (13)):
 L
 L  L
[KFv ] = k(x) NvT Nv dx (8) 1 2 1 T
UF = k(x)[s1 (x) s2 (x)] dx = d T
k(x)[Nv1 Nv1 sin2 
0
2 0
2 1 0

Next, instead of the foregoing well-known case of a sin- T

+Nv1 T
Nw1 sin  cos  + Nw1 Nv1 sin  cos 
gle beam on a xed elastic foundation, consider the case of an  L
elastic foundation between the axes of two three-dimensional 1
T
+Nw1 Nw1 cos ]dx d1 dT
2 T
k(x)[Nv1 Nv2 sin2 
beams 1 and 2, where both beams are free to move in space, 2 1 0
and an angle of inclination  exists in the yz plane between T T
+Nv1 Nw2 sin  cos  + Nw1 Nv2 sin  cos 
them. Coordinate axes x, y, z, and corresponding translational
 L
displacements u, v, w, for the two beams are shown in Fig. 7. 1
T
+Nw1 Nw2 cos ]dx d2 dT
2 T
k(x)[Nv2 Nv1 sin2 
Rotational displacements,  x ,  y ,  z , are not shown, but fol- 2 2 0
low the right-hand-rule convention. Note that s1 and s2 in T T
+Nv2 Nw1 sin  cos  + Nw2 Nv1 sin  cos 
Fig. 7 represent the translational displacements of beams 1
and 2 along the path normal to and directly between the beam
 L
1
center axes.
T
+Nw2 Nw1 cos ]dx d1 + dT
2 T
k(x)[Nv2 Nv2 sin2 
2 2 0
In this case, the additional potential energy due to the elas-
T T
tic foundation depends on the relative displacement of points +Nv2 Nw2 sin  cos  + Nw2 Nv2 sin  cos 
along the axis of one beam with respect to the other, such that T
+Nw2 Nw2 cos2 ]dx d2 (13)
UF is

 L
1 2 Hence, a stiffness matrix contribution, [KF p,q ], from the
UF = k(x) [s1 (x) s2 (x)] dx (9)
2 0 coupled elastic foundation terms corresponding to the nodes
268 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274
Fig. 7 Coordinate system for displacements between
beams 1 and 2.
between the two beams p and q can be identied as
 L
p,q p+q
[KF ] = (1) T
k(x)[Nvp Nvq sin2  + Nvp
T
Nwq sin  cos 
0 y(x), of the common generator surface between the strip and
T T
+Nwp Nvq sin  cos  + Nwp Nwq cos2 ]dx

3.3. Elastic foundation moduli
The elastic foundation moduli, k(x), of Eqs. (4) and (14) rep-
resent linear spring-constants between the adjacent rolls
(beams). Unlike in a conventional nite element approach, in
which a large number of very small elements may be required
to adequately model the contact interface between the rolls,
the elastic foundations used here represent the aggregate
displacementload relationship between the roll axis centers.
A similar approach to represent the metal strip as dis-
crete linear springs was made by Guo (1986) in his transport
matrix method. In examining rolling data for 1880 mm wide
mild steel at up to 80% thickness reduction, Guo found the
use of a linear strip modulus satisfactory. In the presented
method, the same concept of a strip modulus is used, but the
discrete nodal springs are replaced with a continuous elastic
foundation function.
3.4. Representation of strip prole control devices
Parameters affecting the nal strip prole during rolling may
be classied as either controllable or non-controllable. Non-
controllable factors include the initial strip prole, diameter
proles ground onto the rolls, and the incidental effects of roll
wear and roll thermal expansion. Because the elastic foun-
dation moduli, k(x), of Eqs. (4) and (14) are functions of beam
axial position x, they take into account the non-controllable
strip prole factors. Controllable factors include roll bending,
roll shifting, and roll crossing mechanisms. Shifting and cross-
ing mechanisms are modeled with the presented method by
adjusting the model geometry and modifying the elastic foun-
dation modulus accordingly. Roll bending is accommodated by
providing corresponding load values to the forcing vector f.
Although the analytical plane-strain and elastic half-space
solutions for the attening between rolls do not account for
the length-to-diameter ratio of the rolls, nor for any specic
axial loading position, these effects are accommodated by the
elastic foundation moduli since they are indeed functions of
axial position x. Zhou et al. compared the classical analyti-
cal formulae for contact between rolls with three-dimensional
nite element simulations using a traction boundary condi-
tion on a single roll (Zhou et al., 1996). They noted various
differences between the FEM solutions and the classic solu-
tions when studying the effects of strip width, roll diameter
to length ratio, and rolling load intensity. Hacquin also stud-
ied roll end effects upon enhancement of Bergers strip prole
model, which was an improved version of Shohets original
inuence coefcient model (Hacquin et al., 1998; Berger et al.,
1976). These noted geometric effects on the attening charac-
teristics between rolls are accommodated by the foundation
stiffness moduli formulation of the presented method.
3.5. Strip crown calculation
To calculate the strip crown by Eq. (1), the vertical position,
(14) the work roll at the desired axial location x must rst be com-
puted. The common generator vertical position, y(x), between
arbitrary beams 1 and 2 can be obtained using Eq. (15):
D1 (x) k(x)
y(x) = y1j (x) + I(x) sin  (15)
2 k1 (x)
where y1j (x) is the vertical position for node j at the axial coor-
dinate x of beam 1 (in this case the strip). The term D1 (x) is the
original diameter of beam 1, which in this case refers to the
strip thickness. Term k(x) is the equivalent foundation mod-
ulus between beam 1 and the adjacent beam (upper or lower
work roll), and k1 (x) is the foundation stiffness contribution of
beam 1, which is the strip modulus. The term I(x) in Eq. (15)
represents the total interference between the adjacent beams,
as determined from the original nodal coordinates, the roll
diameter proles, and the nodal displacements. Eq. (15) can
be derived from a free body diagram of the nodes connect-
ing beam 1 and the adjacent beam, noting that the ratio of
the foundation displacement magnitudes is the inverse of the
ratio of the foundation stiffness moduli:
1 (x) k(x)
= (16)
(x) k1 (x)
In Eq. (16), 1 (x) is the magnitude of the displacement of the
foundation modulus k1 (x) between the surface and the axis of
beam 1, and (x) is the magnitude of the displacement of the
equivalent foundation modulus k(x) between the axis of beam
1 and the axis of the adjacent beam.
4. Model validation using nite element
analysis
4.1. Application of new method to 4-high mill
The new method is now applied to simulate the deection in
a 4-high rolling mill and compare the predicted strip prole
with that obtained using a large-scale, commercial nite ele-
ment analysis (FEA) package. Partial symmetry of the 4-high
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274 269

Table 1 Geometry parameters for 4-high mill Table 3 Results summary for application of new model
to 4-high mill
Geometry parameter Value
New model result Value
Strip entry thickness, H (mm) 25.400
Strip center exit thickness, h (mm) 21.077 Strip center thickness, h (mm) 21.077
Strip width, w (mm) 508.00 Strip C25 thickness, hc25 (mm) 19.959
Work roll diameter, Dw (mm) 254.00 Strip crown, C25 (mm) 1.118
Work roll length, Lw (mm) 1270.0 Strip crown, C25 (%) 5.304
Backup roll diameter, Db (mm) 508.00 Total force, F (MN) 33.949
Backup roll length, Lb (mm) 1270.0

lus and no external foundation. These equations provide a

Table 2 Parameters for application of new model to parabolic decrease in k(x) from a value of at x = x0 to a value
4-high mill of 0.5 at x = w/2.

Model parameter Value

Strip foundation modulus, (N/mm2 )
Strip foundation modulus modication
length, d (mm)
Strip foundation modulus end nodes
ratio, f1
Backup roll boundary condition type on
end nodes
Work roll boundary condition type on
end nodes
Strip lower edge vertical displacement
boundary condition (mm)
Backup roll elastic modulus, Eb (GPa)
Backup roll Poisson ratio, b
Work roll elastic modulus, Ew (GPa)
Work roll Poisson ratio, w
Number of Timoshenko beam elements
roll conguration is exploited, leading to an upper half model
of the mill. Dimensions of the mill components are shown in
Table 1.
Table 2 indicates model parameters for simulating the 4-
high mill. A total of 48 Timoshenko beam elements with
associated coupling foundations are used to model the upper
half of the mill. The strip foundation modulus, k(x), is assigned
a constant value, = 13790 N/mm2 , over the strip width, w,
except for a modication to decrease the foundation stiff-
ness beginning at points x = x0 , corresponding to a distance,
d, from either strip edge. The magnitude of x0 is therefore
(w/2d).
The specic assignment of k(x) is indicated in Eqs. (17a) and
(17b). The parameter f1 in Eq. (17b) represents the fraction of
the nominal strip foundation modulus remaining at the strip
edges x = w/2. A value of 0.5 is intuitively used for f1 , since the
nodes at x = w/2 equally share an interior foundation modu-
k(x) = , |x| < x0 (17a)
13,790
25.00 f 1 
1
k(x) = |x x0 |2 + 1 , |x| x0 (17b)
d2
0.50
Fig. 8a illustrates the resulting contact force distribution at
Pinned
the interface between the strip and the upper work roll, and
Free
between the upper work roll and the upper back-up roll. Fig. 8b
shows the thickness prole of the upper half of the strip rel-
6.35 ative to the semi-thickness at the strip edge. By Eq. (1), the
strip crown C(x) corresponding to C25 locations (x = 229 mm)
206.84 is 1.118 mm, since the semi-thickness is 0.559 mm greater at
0.30
the strip center than at the C25 edge locations. Table 3 sum-
206.84
marizes the results for the 4-high mill simulation. The model
0.30
48 predicts that for a 17.02% reduction in thickness at the strip
center, the thickness at a distance of 25 mm from either edge of
the strip is 1.118 mm less than the center thickness (19.959 mm
vs. 21.077 mm). Hence, the C25 strip crown is 1.118 mm, or
5.304% of the center thickness.
Since this simulation includes no crown control devices,
Fig. 8a and b illustrates the typical deection and load char-
acteristics that occur in a 4-high rolling mill. It can be seen
that the increase in the contact force distribution in the vicin-
ity of the strip edges leads to greater corresponding thickness
reduction in those areas.
4.2. ABAQUS nite element solution of 4-high mill
To evaluate the ability of the new method to accurately predict
the deection behavior in a 4-high mill, a comparison of the
vertical displacement results is now made using the commer-
cial nite element analysis package ABAQUS (Version 6.6-1).
Due to the computational expense of contact-type structural
analyses in conventional FEA, all planes of symmetry for the

Fig. 8 Contact force distribution (a) and upper strip semi-thickness relative to edge (b).
270 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274

Fig. 9 ABAQUS FEA model of upper section of 4-high mill (64,054 3D tetrahedral elements).

rolling mill are exploited, leading to the 1/8th model of the
4-high mill shown in Fig. 9. Over 64,000 three-dimensional
tetrahedral elements are generated as a result of the extreme
mesh renement assigned automatically by ABAQUS at the
contact interfaces between the rolls and strip.
Rather than performing an elasticplastic analysis, elastic
parameters are assigned to the strip elements in the ABAQUS
FEA model such that they represent a one-dimensional linear
elastic foundation. The purpose is to obtain a direct com-
parison for validating the new model. This is accomplished
by assigning specic values to the Poisson ratio, , and the
Youngs (elastic) modulus, E, of the strip.
Assuming a constant foundation modulus, k(x) = , and not-
ing that this modulus is equivalent to the spring constant per
unit strip width w, the following expression can be obtained for
an area modulus A , where A = /b, and A = bw is the contact
area between the strip and the work roll.
F/y
A =
A Section 4.1 into Eq. (21), and estimating contact dimension
In Eq. (18), F is the total load applied to the strip, y is the
foundation displacement (strip thickness reduction), and A is
the foundation area. Hookes law for the y-direction strain,
corresponding to the strip thickness reduction, is
1
y = [y v(x + z )]
E
modulus, E, in terms of the specied area foundation modulus,
A .
A y
E= (21)
ln(1 + y/H)
The engineering strain may be used directly to obtain Eq.
(22) if the strip thickness reduction is less than 10%:
E = A H (22)
To validate the new method with the results of the ABAQUS
FEA model, a zero Poisson ratio and an equivalent elastic mod-
ulus, E, using Eq. (21) or (22) are assigned to the strip elements
of the FEA model. To determine the equivalent elastic modulus
for the strip upper half, one need only use half the initial strip
thickness and half the thickness reduction, but twice the foun-
dation modulus in Eqs. (21) and (22). Substituting the data from
(18)
b using Eq. (23) for rigid rolls (Roberts, 1978), an equiva-
lent approximate strip elastic modulus, E = 15,300 N/mm2 , for
the tetrahedral elements of the strip upper half section is
obtained. Note that because of the strip crown phenomenon,
the strip thickness reduction, y, in the following equation,
represents the average reduction over the width of the strip to
(19)

In Eq. (19), y is the true strain; E is the elastic modulus; v

is the Poisson ratio; and  x ,  y ,  z are the average orthogonal
Table 4 Parameters for application of ABAQUS FEA to
stress components. Next, a zero Poisson ratio is assigned to 4-high mill
achieve one-dimensional behavior of the strip foundation, and
ABAQUS FEA model parameter Value
one may note that the true strain, y , may be written in terms
of the ratio of the thickness reduction, which is simply the Strip foundation modulus, (N/mm2 ) 13790
engineering strain. One can therefore write Eq. (19) as Strip average thickness reduction, y (mm) 4.94
Average contact dimension, b (mm) 25.06
 y
 y Strip area foundation modulus, A (N/mm3 ) 550.4
ln 1 + = (20) Strip equivalent elastic modulus, E (N/mm2 ) 15,300
H E
ABAQUS Version 6.6-1 element library type CD310M
In Eq. (20), H is the initial strip thickness. Since average (3D tetrahedral)
Number of 3D tetrahedral elements 64,054
stress  y is equal to F/A, one can substitute F from Eq. (18) into
Friction conditions (all contact interfaces) Frictionless
Eq. (20) and rearrange to obtain an expression for the elastic
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274 271

Table 5 Vertical displacement comparison between ABAQUS FEA and new model
Model type No. of elements Strip center disp. (mm) Strip C25 disp. (mm) Strip edge disp. (mm)

FEA iter 1 44,716 4.3896 3.7315 3.3650

FEA iter 2 42,672 4.2718 3.6640 3.3147
FEA iter 3 64,054 4.2459 3.5884 3.2408
New Model 48 4.1891 3.6316 3.1521

obtain an average contact dimension b:


Dw y
b= (23)
2

The parameter values used for the ABAQUS FEA model

are shown in Table 4. All other parameters for the 4-high
mill example, including boundary conditions, are the same
(Table 2). It should be noted that the contact interfaces
between the work roll and back-up roll, and between the strip
and the work roll, are assigned frictionless conditions. In con-
trast, the new method does not allow for any sliding between
adjacent components. As a result, the ABAQUS FEA solution
will yield substantially different results for the strip thickness
prole if sliding is an important inuential factor.
Amplied results for the vertical displacement eld for the
Fig. 10 Vertical displacement of 4-high mill using
ABAQUS FEA model are shown in Fig. 10. The same boundary
ABAQUS FEA.
conditions and material properties used for the new model
in Section 4.1 have been applied here. The typical displace-
ment pattern at the interface between the strip and the work
roll, leading to the strip crown phenomenon, is observable in provides a numerical comparison between the displacements
Fig. 10. Plots of the displacement of the axes of the work roll predicted using the new model and those obtained for three
and backup roll in addition to plots of displacement at the iterations of automatic mesh assignment using the ABAQUS
contact interfaces between the rolls and the strip are given FEA model. Both the displacement eld contour plot of Fig. 10
in Fig. 11. Also shown in Fig. 11 is a plot of the predicted dis- and the FEA displacement curves of Fig. 11 are based on the
placement of the interface between the work roll and the strip third FEA iteration. Table 6 indicates the error in the displace-
based on the new method. ment as predicted by the new method relative to the ABAQUS
Since the strip prole and corresponding crown are results. It is clear that, although the new model comprises just
obtained from the displacement eld, a direct evaluation of 48 Timoshenko beam elements and associated elastic Win-
the performance of the new method can be made. Table 5 kler foundations, it is able to predict displacements similar

Fig. 11 Vertical displacement of roll axes and strip upper surface in 4-high rolling mill.
272 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274

Table 6 Vertical displacement error of new model Table 7 Geometry parameters for 20-high mill
relative to ABAQUS FEA
Geometry parameter Value
Model No. of Center disp. C25 disp. Edge disp.
type elements error (%) error (%) error (%) Strip entry thickness, H (mm) 0.9779
Strip exit thickness, h (mm) 0.9063
FEA iter 1 44,716 4.59 2.68 6.33 Strip width, w (mm) 508.00
FEA iter 2 42,672 1.95 0.88 4.90 Work roll diameter, Dw (mm) 50.80
FEA iter 3 64,054 1.35 1.20 2.73 Work roll length, Lw (mm) 1270.0
First intermediate roll diameter, Df (mm) 101.60
First intermediate roll length, Lf (mm) 1270.0
to the conventional FEA requiring 64,054 elements. Displace- Second intermediate roll diameter, Ds (mm) 172.72
ments at the strip center, C25 location, and strip edge are Second intermediate roll length, Ls (mm) 1270.0
Backing bearing outer diameter, Dbb (mm) 292.10
predicted to within 1.35, 1.20, and 2.73%, respectively, of the
Backing bearing shaft length, Lbb (mm) 1270.0
values computed for the third iteration of the ABAQUS FEA
Backing shaft outer diameter, Dbs (mm) 127.00
model. Another noteworthy point is that regarding the effect No. of backing bearings per shaft, Nbb 6
of lateral sliding between the rolls and the strip. It is evi-
dent from the amplied vertical displacement contour plot
of Fig. 10 that lateral sliding does occur under the friction-
less conditions assigned in the ABAQUS FEA model. However, The entry and exit thickness at the center of the strip are
since no lateral sliding between the components was allowed 0.9779 and 0.9063 mm, respectively, giving a 7.32% reduc-
in the new model, the effect of sliding seems negligible for the tion. The strip width is 508 mm and the length of all rolls is
conditions appliedeven for the relatively low strip width-to- 1270 mm. As shown in Table 7, the roll diameters increase
entry thickness ratio of twenty. Other rolling conditions, on progressively from the work roll to the backing bearing rolls.
the other hand, may suggest relatively different inuences of Each backing bearing roll has six equally spaced bearings of
slipping. Table 6 also indicates an overall convergence trend 292.10 mm diameter, mounted on common solid shafts of
of the FEA displacement results toward those predicted by the 127.0 mm diameter. Parameters assigned to the 20-high mill
new method, providing further validation for the new model. model are shown in Table 8. The upper half of the 20-high
mill is modeled using 252 Timoshenko beam elements and
4.3. Application of new method to 20-high mill associated coupling foundations. A constant strip foundation
modulus, = 52,472 N/mm2 , is assigned over the strip width, w,
In order to demonstrate exibility of the new method to except that the same modication described previously in Eqs.
accommodate complex rolling mill congurations, a model (17a) and (17b) is used to decrease the modulus in the vicinity
of the upper section of the 20-high Sendzimir mill depicted of the strip edges. To simulate the thickness reduction, a uni-
earlier in Fig. 4 is now generated. Dimensions of the strip form vertical displacement boundary condition of 0.5588 mm
and rolls for the 20-high mill example are shown in Table 7. is applied to the lower nodes of the strip upper half section.

Fig. 12 20-High contact force distribution (a and b), and upper strip semi-thickness relative to edge (c).
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274
Table 8 Model parameters for 20-high mill
Model parameter
Strip foundation modulus, (N/mm2 )
Strip foundation modulus modication
length, d (mm)
Strip foundation modulus end nodes
ratio, f1
Backing bearing boundary condition
type on all nodes
Other roll boundary condition type on
end nodes
Strip lower edge vertical displacement
boundary condition (mm)
Elastic modulus of all rolls, Er (GPa)
Poisson ratio of all rolls, r
Number of Timoshenko beam elements
Fig. 12a and b illustrates the results following simula-
tion. Shown is the contact force distribution at the interface
between the strip and the work roll, and between the other
various rolls. Like that observed for the 4-high mill, in the
absence of any strip prole control devices, the contact force
between the strip and the work roll increases in the vicinity of
the strip edges, leading to the natural strip crown. An inter-
esting and useful characteristic of the 20-high mill is its ability
to horizontally transfer much of the vertical roll-bite load. This
is evidenced when comparing the general magnitude contact
force between the second intermediate driver roll (DRVR) and
backing bearings A and B, respectively (BRG A, BRG B).
Table 9 summarizes the results for the 20-high mill sim-
ulation. The C25 strip crown is 0.0605 mm, since the upper
half thickness is 0.0302 mm greater at the strip center than at
the C25 edge locations. This crown corresponds to 6.675% of
the exit thickness at the strip center. Fig. 12c illustrates the
cross-sectional thickness of the upper half of the strip relative
to that of the strip edge. The increased rigidity of the 20-high
mill, in comparison to the 4-high mill, causes it to atten the
natural strip prole over a majority of the strip width, but sig-
nicant edge-drop is still present. The tendency to create such
a large edge-drop leads most users of 20-high mills to decrease
the diameters of the rst intermediate rolls near their ends.
Shifting of these tapered rst intermediate rolls provides con-
trol of the force distribution near the strip edges, and hence
increases control over the magnitude of edge-drop. Although
not included in the scope of this work, the new method is fully
extendable to include the effects of shifting tapered rolls, in
addition to the effects of roll bending mechanisms on 20-high
mills.
Table 9 Results summary for application of new model
to 20-high mill
New model result
Strip center thickness, h (mm)
Strip C25 thickness, hc25 (mm)
Strip crown, C25 (mm)
Strip crown, C25 (%)
Total force, F (MN)
273
5. Conclusions
Value
Presented has been a new compact, exible, and efcient
52,472
25.00
method to predict the deection and resulting strip prole for
both cluster-type and non-cluster-type rolling mills. The new
0.50 method offers several advantages over conventional methods,
including the use of continuous elastic foundations instead of
Pinned discrete nodal springs, third-order displacement elds, and
efcient solution for perturbed load vectors using the inverse
Free
of the compact global stiffness matrix. Since a global stiffness-
0.5588 based linear system is generated, no known rolling force
distribution at the interface between the strip and work rolls
206.84 is needed prior to solution.
0.30 Validation of the new method has been demonstrated
252 using a 4-high rolling mill. Comparison of the displacement at
the interface between the strip and work roll indicates close
agreement with large-scale commercial FEA. Only 48 Timo-
shenko beam elements and associated coupling foundations
were used for the new method, compared to more than 64,000
three-dimensional tetrahedral elements in the FEA model.
Flexibility of the new method has been established by mod-
eling the upper section of a 20-high Sendzimir cluster mill,
including the segmented backing rolls that comprise multiple
bearings mounted on common shafts.
references
Bazoune, A., Khulief, Y.A., 2003. Shape functions of
three-dimensional Timoshenko beam element. J. Sound Vib.
259, 473480.
Berger, B., et al., 1976. The elastic deformation of rolls in 4-high
rolling stands. Arch. Eisenhuttenwes 47, 351356.
Chen, X., Zhou, J., 1987. A specicalized nite element model for
investigating controlling factors affecting behavior of rolls
and strip atness. In: Proceedings of the 4th International
Steel Rolling Conference, pp. E4.1E4.7.
Cook, R.D., et al., 2002. Concepts and applications of nite
element analysis. Wiley, New York.
Eibe, W., 1984. Inatable crown rollscharacteristics, design and
applications. Iron Steel Eng. 61, 426432.
Foppl, A., 1933. Technische Mechanik, 4th ed, p. 350.
Gunawardene, G.W.D.M., et al., 1981. Static model for Sendzimir
cold-rolling mill. Metals Technol., 274283.
Guo, R.M., 1986. Computer model simulation of strip crown and
shape control. Iron Steel Eng., 3542.
Guo, R.M., 1998. Development of a single-stage transport matrix
method using the beam on elastic foundation theory. In:
Proceedings of the 19th Southeastern Conference on
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics.
Guo, R.M., Malik, A.S., 2005. Development of a new crown/shape
model for cluster mills. Iron Steel Technol. 2, 3140.
Hacquin, A., et al., 1994. Experimental validation of a rolling
stand elastic deformation model. J. Mater. Process. Technol.
45, 199206.
Hacquin, A., et al., 1998. A three-dimensional semi-analytical
Value
model of rolling stand deformation with nite element
0.9063 validation. Eur. J. Mech. A: Solids 17, 79106.
0.8458 Hattori, S., et al., 1993. Application of pattern recognition and
0.0605 control techniques to shape control of rolling mills. Hitachi
6.675 Rev. 42, 165170.
2.292 Johnson, K.L., 1985. Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University
Press, p. 131.
274 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 6 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 263274
Jung, J.Y., Im, Y.T., 1997. Simulation of fuzzy shape control for
cold-rolled strip with randomly irregular strip shape. J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 63 (13), 248.
Kono, T., 1983. Development of a mathematical model on crown
control in strip rolling. Sumitomo Search 28, 18.
Kuhn, H.A., Weinstein, A.S., 1970. Lateral distribution of pressure
in thin strip rolling. J. Eng. Ind. ASME, 453456.
Malik, A.S., Rolling mill optimization using an accurate and rapid
new model for mill deection and strip thickness prole, PhD
Dissertation, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, 2007.
Malik, A.S., Grandhi, R.V., Analytical method for use in
optimizing dimensional quality in hot and cold rolling mills,
US Patent Application No. 11,686,381,
2007.
Matsubara, S., et al., 1989. Optimization of work roll taper for
extremely thin strip rolling. ISIJ Int. 29, 5863.
Nakajima, K., Matsumoto, H., 1973. Proceedings of 24th Japanese
Joint Conference for Technology of Plasticity, JSTP 29.
Ogawa, S., et al., 1991. Prediction of atness of ne gauge strip
rolled by 12-high cluster mill. ISIJ Int. 31, 599606.
Poplawski, J.V., Seccombe, D.A., 1980. Bethlehems contribution to
the mathematical modeling of cold rolling in tandem mills.
AISE Yearbook, 391402.
Roberts, W.L., 1978. Cold Rolling of Steel. Marcel Dekker, New
York, p. 484.
Shohet, K.N., Townsend, N.A., 1968. Roll bending methods of
crown control in four-high plate mills. J. Iron Steel Inst.,
10881098.
Shohet, K.N., Townsend, N.A., 1971. Flatness control in plate
rolling. J. Iron Steel Inst., 769775.
Stone, M.D., Gray, R., 1965. Theory and practice aspects in crown
control. Iron Steel Eng. Yearbook, 1965, 657667.
Tozawa, Y., 1984. Analysis for three-dimensional deformation in
strip rolling taken deformation of the rolls into consideration.
In: Proceedings of the Conference of Advanced Technology of
Plasticity, Tokyo, pp. 11511160.
Zhou, S., et al., 1996. Inuence of roll geometry and strip width
on attening in at rolling. Steel Res. 67, 200204.
Zhu, H.T., et al., 1993. A fuzzy algorithm for atness control in a
hot strip mill. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 140, 123128.