Prediction of geometrical profile in slit rolling

pass
F. Lambiase1*

Dept. of Industrial and Information Engineering and Economics, University of

L’Aquila, Monteluco di Roio, 67040 (AQ), Italy

Abstract
In the shape rolling process, the reduction of the number of passes is a challenging
topic for the steel industry. This can be achieved by enhancing the design approach or
by developing new rolling passes that allow the production of high cross-section
reductions such as with the slit roll pass.
However, in order to design a robust roll pass, the lateral spread of the workpiece
must be predicted correctly to prevent incomplete, or even worse, excessive roll
groove fulfilling (which may cause roll damage).
In the present investigation, the possibility of using a finite element model to predict
the lateral spread in a slit roll pass is investigated. The results of the finite element
model are then used to adapt and calibrate two analytical models that were developed
originally for strip rolling and shape rolling with concave grooves.

Keywords: Slit pass, split, roll pass design, shape rolling, finite element modeling;
analytical modeling.

Nomenclature
 geometrical parameter of roll profile
 calibration parameter (Shinokura model)
a calibration parameter (Kazeminezhad model)
d geometrical parameter of roll profile
p calibration parameter (Kazeminezhad model)
r geometrical parameter of roll profile

1
*Corresponding author:
F. Lambiase
francesco.lambiase@univaq.it
Monteluco di Roio, 67040 (AQ), Italy
Tel. N.: (+39) 0862 434422
Fax N.: (+39) 0862 434303
 W W1-W0
A0 area of the cross section of the incoming bar
Ah geometrical parameter used in Shinokura and Takai model
As geometrical parameter used in Shinokura and Takai model
Bc Horizontal component of the contact length between the roll
and the workpiece
C rolls clearance
F friction coefficient
H0 height of the incoming bar
H0m height of the equivalent rectangle describing the incoming bar
H1m height of the equivalent rectangle describing the roll groove
K coefficient for determination of friction
R mean radius of the rolls
T temperature of the workpiece during the roll pass
W0 width of the incoming bar
W1 width of the bar after the roll pass

1. Introduction
Rod rolling is a metal forming process (typically performed at elevated
temperatures) used to produce bars and rods for a wide range of applications (civil,
transportation, structural). During this process, the external shape of the workpiece
changes and undergoes an increase in the longitudinal dimension (elongation), a
reduction in mean height and lateral spreading, which depends mainly on the
geometrical behaviour of the workpiece and the roll groove profile. Actually,
depending on the resistance of the material to flow towards one direction rather than
another, a larger or smaller spreading can occur (i.e., higher friction coefficient or
large roll radii lead to a larger opposition in the longitudinal direction resulting in a
larger spreading of the material).
The requirements for higher quality products as well as for reductions in production
and operating costs have driven the development of new approaches for shape rolling
design. The introduction of new automatic roll shape design algorithms [1-5],
numerical modelling [6-10], nonlinear finite element simulations [11-15] and also
empirical and semi-empirical models [16,6,17,18] and new passes [19-21], have
allowed the production of products with small dimensional tolerances from a fewer
number of passes.
A possible solution for further reduction in the number of passes is represented by
the employment of the slit (split) breakdown sequence (which is generally performed
in two passes). During the split sequence, the incoming workpiece is broken down
progressively into two nearly round bars; thus, achieving a high cross-section
reduction. The industrial employment of such a pass requires the development of
flexible tools aimed at predicting the characteristics of the material spread, contact
pressure and separation force, etc. Among the others, the prediction of the material
spread is the key feature for the roll pass designer in preventing incomplete or
excessive roll groove fulfilling, which may affect the product quality or may lead to
roll damage.
Different approaches have been adopted in the field of shape-rolling design based
mainly on empirical knowledge, trial and error and finite element (FE) simulations.
These approaches suffer from a number of limitations. The former is generally
performed by exploiting potential similarities with some known solutions; therefore, it
generally fails when new passes (such as the slit pass) have to be designed. The latter
approach represents a very flexible tool but requires a relatively long time and thus, it
may become time consuming in the early design phase of a new roll pass.
In the present research, an FE model was developed to estimate the lateral spread of
a workpiece during the slit pass. The results of the FE model were compared with
those of two semi-empirical equations: one developed originally for concave roll
groove profiles [22] and the other used for strip and flat rolling [23]. Based on the
achieved results, it was determined that both the considered formulas can predict the
workpiece spread accurately; thus, representing an efficient tool for roll pass design of
split pass in the early design stage.

2. Slit Breakdown Sequence

Typically, the slit breakdown sequence is performed in two passes. Herein, a first
pass is performed to adapt the incoming workpiece shape (generally a bastard oval) to
an 8-shaped semi-finished piece. Fig. 1(a) depicts a schematic of a split pass.

Fig. 1 (a) Schematic representation of the split sequence, (b) main geometrical parameters of slit pass

The rolls involved in the first and the second passes have relatively similar grooves
consisting of a double-round shape with a central protrusion that produces progressive
separation of the workpiece. The inclination of the protrusion shown in Fig. 1(b))
in the rolls involved in the first pass is generally much higher than that of the second
pass to increase its stiffness. The rolls involved in the two passes have different aims;
indeed, in the first pass, the roll protrusion exerts a rolling-indentation effect on the
workpiece, which can be assumed as a deep roll coining. In the second pass, the side
edges of the protrusion (rather than its apex) are used to separate the workpiece into
the developing round bars. The key design parameters for designing a slit pass are
represented in Fig. 1(b). As can be noted, the slit pass is significantly different from
the common concave calibres used for rod rolling; actually, the slit rolls are
characterised by the protrusion (nose) that results in a mixed concave-convex
configuration.
Because the aim of the slit breakdown sequence is “parallel splitting”, generally, the
maximum clearance of the rolls is such that the height of the groove is almost equal to
the height of the incoming workpiece. Only slight adjustments are performed to the
rolls clearance in order to compensate possible design errors, as shown in Fig. 2.
Actually, an incorrect design of the slit pass or an inappropriate choice of the rolls
clearance C, might lead to some effects on the final workpiece. Fig. 2(a) represents
schematically the case in which an excessive value of C (i.e., the roll groove is
oversized compared with the incoming workpiece) is adopted. In this case, the
product may be affected by an excessive lack of circularity for subsequent passes. On
the other hand, an excessively low value of the rolls clearance (i.e., an undersized roll
groove with respect to the incoming workpiece), as illustrated in Fig. 2(c), might
determine an excessive roll groove fulfilling with production of lateral burrs on the
workpiece and a sudden increase in the rolls separation force in addition to other
possible rolls damage.

Fig. 2 Filling behaviours: (a) excessive roll clearance, (b) correct roll clearance, (c) insufficient roll
clearance

Slit pass modelling

Analytical modelling
Several modelling approaches have been proposed to predict the change in profile
during shape rolling. Recently, Abrinia [8,7] has developed an upper bound method
that has been applied to rectangle-diamond, round-oval-round and square-oval passes;
however, the employment of such a model directly for other passes is not feasible. In
addition, because the prediction of the final geometrical profile of the rolled
workpiece is performed in an implicit manner (the minimisation of the deformation
energy based on the employment of a genetic algorithm procedure), the effects of the
design parameters are not clear.
 Shinokura and Takai [22] developed a semi-empirical model to predict the spread
occurring in a number of rolling passes. In this case, the model was relatively simple;
indeed, it required the calibration of only the parameter  for a given type of pass and
the effect of process parameters on the spread is given with an explicit representation.
Because of such advantages, a number of other passes were analysed with this model
giving reliable results [11,12].
As mentioned above, the great advantage of the model lies in its simplicity; indeed,
in the spread formula, the incoming workpiece and the roll groove are replaced by
equivalent rectangles, which are characterised by the same cross-sectional area of the
reference geometry (workpiece or roll groove) and have a width that equals Bc. A
schematic representation of the equivalent rectangles involved in Shinokura and
Takai’s model for the classical round-oval passage is reported in Fig. 3(a). According
to such a model, the main lateral spread W/W0 is proportional to Ah (as depicted in
Fig. 3) and the length of the contact arc (which is approximated by the length of the
cord √𝑅 ∙ ∆𝐻). However, the lateral spread is inversely proportional to W0 and H0.
Thus, the model can be represented by a closed form equation (eq. 1).

∆𝑊 𝐴ℎ √𝑅 ∙ ∆𝐻
=𝜇∙ ∙ eq.1
𝑊0 𝐴0 𝑊0 + 0.5𝐻0

where:

∆𝐻 = 𝐻0𝑚 − 𝐻1𝑚 eq. 2

𝐴0 − 𝐴𝑠 − 𝐴ℎ
𝐻1𝑚 = eq. 3
𝐵𝑐
𝐴0 − 𝐴𝑠 eq. 4
𝐻0𝑚 =
𝐵𝑐

substituting eqs. 2, 3 and 4 into eq. 1, we get:

𝑅∙𝐴
√ 𝐵ℎ
∆𝑊 𝐴ℎ 𝑐 eq. 5
=𝜇∙ ∙
𝑊0 𝐴0 𝑊0 + 0.5𝐻0

The adaptation of this model to the slit pass is presented graphically in Fig. 3(b).
 Fig. 3 Geometrical representation of parameters utilised for spread evaluation: (a) conventional
round-oval pass, (b) slit pass

Another analytical model that was developed originally to predict the lateral spread
of thick strips and then applied subsequently to the flat rolling pass by Kazeminezhad
[23] has been also used. According to the original formula, the ratio W1/W0 can be
expressed as follows:

𝑊1 𝐻0 𝑝
= 𝑎( ) eq. 6
𝑊0 𝐻1

where a and p are constants that can be determined by regression. As suggested by

Wusatowsky [24], the values for p and a should be lower than 0.5 and slightly
different from unity, respectively. In eq. 6, the final height of the workpiece h 1 has
been substituted with the height of the equivalent rectangle h1m as built by the
Shinokura and Takai model.

Finite element simulation of slit rolling pass

To calibrate and validate the previously mentioned analytical models, a nonlinear
FE model of the slit-rolling pass is developed. A fully 3D transient simulation is
solved with an explicit time integration algorithm. Because of the symmetry of the
problem, only a quarter of the workpiece was considered and proper boundary
conditions were imposed to guarantee symmetry. The rolls were assumed to behave
rigidly; thus, they were modelled with a rigid surface. However, the workpiece was
discretised with 8-node linear brick elements with reduced integration, which
permitted a reduction in the simulation time and hourglass problems. The von Mises
criterion was adopted as the plasticity model for the workpiece. The contact between
the roll and the workpiece was simulated using a penalty contact algorithm. A friction
coefficient depending on the rolling speed was applied, as well as the temperature
according to the equation proposed by Bachtinov: F = (1.05-510-4T) K [25], where
T represents the reference temperature and K depends on the rolling speed, as
presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Coefficient K for the friction coefficient

Rolling Speed [m/s] K

Up to 2 1
3 0.9
7 0.6
10 0.52
15 0.44
20 0.41

A sliding-sticking friction model is assumed with a shear stress limit max = y/√3;
herein, y represents the initial yield stress of the weaker material involved in the
contact. The model did not involve heat exchange; thus, an isothermal simulation was
performed. To predict the material flow during the slit-rolling pass accurately, a fine
mesh was used involving almost 30000 elements (1 × 1 × 1 mm) for the workpiece. In
addition, because of the large and highly localised deformation, adaptive re-meshing
was involved to preserve the mesh regularity.

Plan of simulation
A series of simulations was performed by changing the main geometrical
parameters of the roll groove and incoming bar. Particularly, five main cases were
developed to analyse the effects of the side radius r, height of the protrusion d, initial
workpiece width W0, rolls clearance C and the angle of protrusion , as summarised
in Table 2. For each of the principal cases, at least four simulations were performed
by changing the width of the incoming workpiece. In addition, additional simulations
were carried out to evaluate the values of W1 corresponding to the intermediate values
of the above-mentioned factors.
Table 2 Plan of Simulations

Case h0 [mm] R [mm] d [mm] deg C

1 28 14 5 80 0
2 28 14 10 80 0
3 28 12 5 80 0
4 28 14 5 80 2
5 28 14 5 60 0

3. Results and Discussion

Validation of the FE model

An industrial case study was adopted to validate the FE model. Herein, the slit pass
is intended to be used as an intermediate pass for the production of round wires ϕ8,
ϕ10 and ϕ 12 mm used for reinforcing concrete. The initial billet of the sequence has
a square section (140 × 140 mm). The incoming bar had a bastard-oval cross shape
with dimensions of 32 × 20 mm (width × height). The slit roll has a mean radius R of
150 mm. The temperature of the incoming workpiece was measured by an infrared
pyrometer as 1040±30 °C and the roll radial speed was 8 m/s; according to the
previously mentioned formula, this results in a Coulomb coefficient of 0.3. The
workpiece material was low carbon steel AISI 1018 characterised by yield strength of
386 MPa, tensile strength of 634 and an elongation at break of 27%. The strain
hardening behaviour of the material at the rolling temperature is described by 𝜎̅ =
77.5𝜀̅̇0.192 𝑀𝑃𝑎 [26].
The main geometrical behaviours of the analysed slitting rolls groove are reported
in Fig. 4(a). Three samples were cut from different positions of the rolled bar (6-m
long) after the slit pass: one sample was cut from the centre of the bar, whereas the
other two were cut at distances of almost 1 m from the head and the tail of the bar. A
cross section of the workpiece after the slit pass is depicted in Fig. 4(b). The picture
shows the excessive fulfilling behaviours of the roll grooves, which result from an
incorrect design of roll pass.
As can be inferred from Fig. 4(b), the FE model results correlate well with the
experimental measurements; indeed, the predicted profile is very close to that of the
experimental sample. In addition, the measured final width was 38±0.2 mm, whereas
that predicted by the FE model was 36.8 mm, resulting in a percentage error of almost
3%. Both the experimental sample and the simulated workpiece showed an overfilling
effect that is probably due to an excessively large incoming workpiece or insufficient
rolls clearance but definitively an erroneous pass design.

Fig. 4 (a) Nominal dimensions of the incoming bar and roll grooves used for validation, (b)
comparison of simulated and experimental cross section of the semi-finished bar after the first slit pass

Fig. 5 depicts the results of the simulation concerning the validation case. As can be
noted, the mesh is only slightly distorted due to the frequent adaptive re-meshing,
which results in an accurate prediction of the variables fields. As can be inferred from
Fig. 5 (a), the strain distribution is concentrated mainly in the central zone, close to
the rolls protrusions while the highest value of the strain-rate is located at the central
zone in correspondence of the roll protrusion. Here, a high value of the plastic strain
is generally observed. In addition, a zone with an almost uniform distribution of
plastic strain can be observed between the two protrusions, leading to the formation of
shear bends similar to those observed in flat rolling [27-29] and in roll drawing
[30,31], which indicate a highly inhomogeneous deformation. Here, because the
contact area has a lower width, the shear bands are much more confined than those
produced with conventional concave rolls used in rod rolling. On the other hand, only
marginal values of the strain can be observed at the peripheral zones. Herein, because
of the excessive rolls groove fulfilling, a slight increase in the strain is observed in the
side zones of the workpiece. Such an increase is due to the contact pressure exerted
by the side parts of the rolls on the workpiece. Nevertheless, a correct design of the
roll pass prevents such plastic strain at the lateral zones of the workpiece, as depicted
in Fig. 6.

Fig. 5 Results of FE simulation of the validation case (a) Equivalent strain and (b) equivalent strain-
rate

Fig. 6 Distribution of plastic strain for the validation case using the original and corrected design

Influence of process parameters

To evaluate the possible influence of the size of the protrusion d on the strain
distribution, different values of the ratio 2d/h0 were investigated, as summarised in
Table 2. Fig. 7 depicts the plastic strain distribution for two cases: a large value of
2d/h0 and a smaller value of 2d/h0. The latter case (whose results are reported in Fig.
7b) was achieved by increasing the rolls clearance with respect to that involved in the
former case. As can be inferred from Fig. 7(b), the adoption of a larger clearance than
that defined by the design leads to a lack of circularity on the developing two bars that
can be difficult to recover in subsequent passes.
Concerning the deformation field, it can be noted that the shear bands are confined
between the two rolls protrusions, regardless of the assumed rolls clearance,
confirming the assumption made by the Shinokura and Takai’s model, which states
that the workpiece spread is due to the plastic strain developing within the contact
zone (and thus, it is proportional to the area Ah).

Fig. 7 Distribution of plastic strain for (a) large and (b) small values of 2d/h 0 ratios

On the other hand, as also depicted in Fig. 8, the roll clearance influences the
amount of plastic strain in the area between the protrusions. At the centre of the bar,
the plastic strain yields the highest values and it drops rapidly to almost null values
moving away from the shear bands, which further confirms that the strain is confined
to the area between the roll-workpiece contact surfaces. To reduce such high
inhomogeneity of deformation, the roll has to be designed in such a way to be
completely fulfilled (the lateral side of the roll profile must be in contact with the
workpiece), although this leads to an increase of the rolls separation forces.
0.6
0.5 Large d/h0
Spread [mm/mm]

0.4
Small d/h0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1 0 5 10 15 20
Distance from yz plane [mm]

Fig. 8 Lateral strain distribution of two cases involving a large and a small value of 2d/h 0

From the results of the FE simulation, it can be inferred that the increase in W1 with
W0 is almost linear for all the analysed cases, as can be observed in Fig. 9(a). Indeed,
as above mentioned, the plastic strain is localised between the rolls protrusions;
therefore, the workpiece spread is determined only by the amount of the plastic strain
in that area and not by the initial width of the workpiece. The two curves of Fig. 9(a)
that pertain to cases 1 and 4 (which differ by the value of C) are almost parallel.
Indeed, the change of the roll clearance influences mainly the amount of plastic strain
and the size of the contact area; therefore, a larger value of C would result in a lower
amount of plastic strain and shear bands with lower extension.
The comparison of cases 1 and 3, which differ in the values of the roll groove radius
r, shows a negligible dependence of the final workpiece width by such a design
parameter. Indeed, because the contact area is located close to the roll protrusion, roll
groove r determines mainly the final diameter of the finished semi-round bar.
Actually, it is observed that the amount of plastic strain is mainly dependent on the
extension of the area Ah, which does not depend on r.
As expected, both the angle of the protrusion  and the protrusion height d have
significant effect on the workpiece spreading. Particularly, as depicted in Fig. 9(b)
and (c), the final workpiece width W1 increases more than linearly with both  and d.
Thus, the increase in these design parameters determines the increase in the area Ah
and in turn, the increase in the plastic strain at the workpiece centre.
 Fig. 9 Main effects of the analysed design parameters: (a) width and rolls clearance, (b) height of the
roll groove protrusion, (c) protrusion angle

Validation of analytical formulas

After this brief analysis of the influence of the design parameters on the final width
of the workpiece, we discuss the above-mentioned analytical formulations when
applied to the slit-rolling pass. In order to employ the previous analytical models, an
inverse technique (based on a regression of the FEM results) was adopted to
determine the optimal values of the formula parameters:  (Shinokura model) and a
and p (Kazeminezhad model). The minimisation of the difference between the models
and the FE model results lead to the following equations:

𝑅∙𝐴ℎ
√
∆𝑊 𝐴ℎ 𝐵𝑐 eq. 7
= 1.3 ∙ ∙
𝑊0 𝐴0 𝑊0 + 0.5𝐻0
𝑊1 ℎ0 0.4
= 1( ) eq. 8
𝑊0 ℎ1

The above formulas correlate well with the FE model results and as can be seen
from Fig. 9, the maximum error in the prediction of the final width is 2% for both the
formulations. In addition, the discovered parameters are comparable with those found
in the literature concerning other shape rolling and flat rolling passes.
From eq. 7, it is clear that the value of the  parameter is much higher than the
values typically assumed for conventional concave passes, which usually range
between 0.83 (oval-round pass) and 1.06 (oval-square) [22]. A possible explanation
can be the direction of contact forces exerted by the rolls protrusion. Actually, when
using typical concave rolling rolls, the contact surface (other than the frictional ones)
tends to restrain material spreading by exerting a compressive action towards the
centre of the bar, as depicted in Fig. 10(b). On the other hand, in the slit pass, the
contact force exerted by the roll protrusion tends to separate the two developing bars
and thus, it produces a much larger spread (Fig. 10(a)).

Fig. 10 Direction of normal contact forces developing in (a) slit pass and (b) oval rolls groove

Based on the previous results, the main rules for slit roll pass design can be stated:
 The initial height H0 of the incoming bar almost equals 2r+C;
 The  angle and the height of the protrusion d should be chosen to achieve
two round bars with good circularity;
 The initial width W0 of the incoming bar should be chosen to avoid the
presence of lateral burs in the developing round bars (such a choice can be
simplified by the adoption of the above mentioned analytical formulas;
 The definite design of the possible solutions can be performed using the FE
model to perform a product quality optimisation, e.g., by reducing the strain
inhomogeneity in the workpiece, the stress developing on the roll protrusion
is reduced.

Conclusions
The spread achieved in the slit rolling pass is analysed by means of an FE model.
The influence of the geometrical behaviours of the slit workpiece and the roll on the
final spread of the workpiece was conducted and it was established that the lateral
spread depends mainly on the extension of the compressed area Ah.
 Subsequently, the results of the FE model were compared with the predictions of
two analytical models, developed originally for concave roll passes, strip rolling and
flat rolling. The models were calibrated by comparing the results with those provided
by the FE model. Relatively good agreement was found between the FE model results
and the analytical models; the maximum error in the estimation of the final workpiece
dimension was lower than 2%. Although these analytical models are not intended to
substitute FE modelling during roll pass design, their employment could be exploited
effectively during the preliminary design of a slitting pass, by restraining the set of
possible solutions with little effort, as well as explicitly expressing the effects of the
process parameters on the final spread of the bar.

References
1. Lambiase F (2013) Optimization of shape rolling sequences by integrated artificial intelligent
techniques. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology.
2. Huang B, Xing K, Abhary K, Spuzic S (2012) Development of energy-saving optimization for the
oval-edging oval pass design using genetic algorithm. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 61:423-429.
3. Lambiase F, Langella A (2009) Automated Procedure for Roll Pass Design. Journal of Materials
Engineering and Performance 18 (3):263-272.
4. Yang J, Che H, Dou F, Zhou T (2008) Genetic Algorithm-Based Optimization Used in Rolling
Schedule. Journal of Iron and Steel Research, International 15 (2):18-22.
5. Huang B, Xing K, Abhary K, Spuzic S (2012) Optimization of oval–round pass design using genetic
algorithm. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 28:493-499.
6. Zeng G, Li SH, Yu ZQ, Lai XM (2009) Optimization design of roll profiles for cold roll forming
based on response surface method. Materials & Design 30 (6):1930-1938.
7. Abrinia K, Fazlirad A (2009) Three-dimensional analysis of shape rolling using a generalized upper
bound approach. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (7):3264-3277.
8. Abrinia K, Fazlirad A (2009) Investigation of Single Pass Shape Rolling Using an Upper Bound
Method. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 19 (4):541-552.
9. Serajzadeh S, Mahmoodkhani Y (2008) A combined upper bound and finite element model for
prediction of velocity and temperature fields during hot rolling process. International Journal of
Mechanical Sciences 50 (9):1423-1431.
10. Hsiang SH, Lin SL (2000) Study of a 3-D FEM combined with the slab method for shape rolling.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 100:74-79.
11. Minutolo FC, Durante M, Lambiase F, Langella A (2006) Dimensional analysis of a new type of
groove for steel rebar rolling. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 175 (1-3):69-76.
12. Capece Minutolo F, Durante M, Lambiase F, Langella A (2005) Dimensional Analysis in Steel Rod
Rolling for Different Types of Grooves. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 14 (3):373-
377.
13. Jiang Z (2004) A FEM modelling of the elastic deformation zones in flat rolling. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 146 (2):167-174.
14. Dyja H, Szota P, Mroz S (2004) 3D FEM modelling and its experimental verification of the rolling
of reinforcement rod. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 153-154:115-121.
15. Komori K (1998) Rigid-plastic finite-element methodfor analysis of three-dimensional rolling that
requires small memory capacity. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 40 (5):479-491.
16. Zhang SH, Zhao DW, Gao CR (2012) The calculation of roll torque and roll separating force for
broadside rolling by stream function method. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 57 (1):74-
78.
17. Kim J, Lee J, Hwang SM (2009) An analytical model for the prediction of strip temperatures in hot
strip rolling. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 52 (7-8):1864-1874.
18. Min J, Kwon H, Lee Y, Woo J, Im Y (2003) Analytical model for prediction of deformed shape in
three-roll rolling process. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 140 (1-3):471-477.
19. Stefanik A Slitting criterion for various rolling speeds in MSR rolling process. In: Achievements in
Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 2008.
20. Mróz S Examination of the effect of slitting roller shape on band slitting during the multi slit
rolling process. In: Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 2008.
21. Mroz S, Stefanik A, Dyja H (2006) The application of the inverse method for determination of
slitting criterion parameter during the multi slit rolling (MSR) process. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology 177 (1-3):493-496.
22. Shinokura T, Takai K (1982) A New Method for Calculating Spread in Rod Rolling. Applied Metal
Working 2 (2):94-99.
23. Kazeminezhad M, Taheri A (2005) An experimental investigation on the deformation behavior
during wire flat rolling process. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 160 (3):313-320.
24. Wusatowski Z (1969) Fundamentals of Rolling. Pergamon Press, Katowice
25. Kemp IP (1990) Model of deformation and heat transfer in hot rolling of
bar sections. J Iron Mak Steelmak 17:139–143.
26. Kennedy KF (1986) A method for metal deformation and stress analysis in rolling. Ohio State
University,
27. Kazeminezhad M, Karimi Taheri A, Kiet Tieu A (2008) A study on the cross-sectional profile of
flat rolled wire. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 200 (1-3):325-330.
28. Kazeminezhad M, Karimitaheri A (2007) Deformation inhomogeneity in flattened copper wire.
Materials & Design 28 (7):2047-2053.
29. Kazeminezhad M, Karimi Taheri A (2006) The prediction of macroscopic shear bands in flat rolled
wire using the finite and slab element method. Materials Letters 60 (27):3265-3268.
30. Lambiase F, Di Ilio A (2012) Deformation inhomogeneity in roll drawing process. Journal of
Manufacturing Processes 14 (3):208-215.
31. Lambiase F, Di Ilio A (2011) A parametric study on residual stresses and loads in drawing process
with idle rolls. Materials & Design 32 (10):4832-4838.
List of Table Captions
Table 1 Coefficient K for the friction coefficient
Table 2 Plan of Simulations
 List of Figure Captions
Fig. 1 (a) Schematic representation of the split sequence, (b) main geometrical
parameters of slit pass
Fig. 2 Filling behaviours: (a) excessive roll clearance, (b) correct roll clearance, (c)
insufficient roll clearance
Fig. 3 Geometrical representation of parameters utilised for spread evaluation: (a)
conventional round-oval pass, (b) slit pass
Fig. 4 (a) Nominal dimensions of the incoming bar and roll grooves used for
validation, (b) comparison of simulated and experimental cross section of the semi-
finished bar after the first slit pass
Fig. 5 Results of FE simulation of the validation case (a) Equivalent strain and (b)
equivalent strain-rate
Fig. 6 Distribution of plastic strain for the validation case using the original and
corrected design
Fig. 7 Distribution of plastic strain for (a) large and (b) small values of 2d/h0 ratios
Fig. 8 Lateral strain distribution of two cases involving a large and a small value of
2d/h0
Fig. 9 Main effects of the analysed design parameters: (a) width and rolls clearance,
(b) height of the roll groove protrusion, (c) protrusion angle
Fig. 10 Direction of normal contact forces developing in (a) slit pass and (b) oval
rolls groove