865

MAXIMUM REDUCTION IN COLD STRIP ROLLING

By B. Avitzur, M.S. (Eng.), B.Sc. (Eng.), PhD. (Eng.)*
An analytical equation is derived for the prediction of maximum reductions possible as
dependent on the process variables. The results of this equation are presented in graphical
form for a wide range of the process variables. A simple experimental procedure is sug-
gested for the determination of the coefficient of friction.
The process variables are: The roll radius Ro, initial ti and final t f strip thickness,
material yield limit uo at uniaxial tensile test with yield limit u,i at initial thickness and
uof at h a 1 exit thickness, front pull stress u d and back pull stress arb, the coefficient of
friction p , and the rolling speed U.
The power balance is set for the rolling operation. The powers computed are :
(1) the useful power consumed as internal work of deformation of the strip, called
sometimes ‘The homogeneous power’;
(2) power consumed by the back pull on the strip ;
(3) power supplied by the front pull on the strip ;
(4) power consumed by the friction between the rolls and the strip ;and
(5) power supplied by the rolls.
From the equation : sum of the powers = 0, a dependence of the process variables one
on each other is established. From this dependence the coefficient of friction can be com-
puted at maximum reduction, and this gives a simple procedure for the experimental
determination of the average coefficient of friction. With the coefficient of friction, yield
limit, dimensions of the strip and roll and the values of the front and back pull known,
from a given graph the maximum reduction possible can then be computed or picked.

INTRODUCTION speed (2) (3) (4), etc. Information on coefficients of friction

THISPAPER DEALS with the cold rolling of metal strips,
where the width of the strip is much greater than its thick-
ness. The main purpose of rolling is to reduce the strip
thickness. Some simultaneous effects of the cold-rolling
operation are changes in surface finish and appearance,
increase in hardness, and increase of the yield limit. The
rolling is done between two rolls. In the following discus-
sion both rolls will be powered, run at identical velocity
and have the same radius and surface conditions. The
subject of strip rolling is extensively treated by Larke (1)t.
The energy approach was taken throughout this analysis.
The same energy approach can be utilized for the solution
of related problems such as torque, power consumption,
etc. The specitic subject of this paper is the analytical
approach to the prediction of maximum reduction. The
coefficient of friction is one of the variables affecting the
maximum reduction. Its value depends on many factors:
surface condition of the rolls and the strip, lubrication,
The MS. of this paper was first received at the Institution on 8th
February 1960, and in its revised form, as accepted by the Council
for publication, on 26th April 1960.
* Scientific Laboratory, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan.
t A numerical list of references is given in Appendix I I .
Proc Instn Mcch Engrr
for all possible combinations of these factors is not available
at the present time. A procedure is suggested in this paper
for easy determination of the apparent coefficient of friction.
The assumed pattern of the deformation is described in
Fig. 1. Cylindrical symmetry exists along each arc connect-
ing any two symmetrical points on the opposing rolls. The
arcs are eccentxic and each one meets the roll surfaces at
right angles. The radius of curvature of these arcs increases
as the material point advances further toward the exit.
(See equation (lo).)
The rolls transfer power to the strip through the friction
between the two bodies$ (Figs. 1 and 2). In regular rolling
conditions the strip moves at the entrance slower than the
roll, and at the exit the strip moves faster than the roll. The
point at which the strip moves at the same speed as the
roll is the neutral point. For a discussion about the neutral
point, or neutral zone, the reader is referred to van
Rooyen (4). The frictional forward force pushes the strip
between the rolls. As the reduction increases, the neutral
$ It is assumed here that the roll is a riDd body. The pressure between
the roll and the strip is directed toward the centre of the roll and
therefore does not contribute to the moment.
Voll74 No 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

866 B. AVITZUR

contact is achieved. Only the first criterion is of concern

I
F R i ~ & ! # ~ ~ ~ C E ’ NEUTRAL P-OlNT
I
Fig. 1. The strip, the roll, and the assumed deformation
pattern
point moves toward the exit. When such a reduction is
achieved that the neutral point is at the exit, all the friction
is utilized to push the strip in between the rolls. For greater
reduction, more frictional force is required, and because it
is not available, the rolls start slipping over the strip. Thus
it is that maximum possible reduction is achieved when the
neutral point is at the exit, that is, when the exit velocity is
equal to the circumferential roll velocity.
A term ‘maximum angle of bite’ is often used inter-
changeably for maximum reduction. This maximum angle
of bite is also frequently interpreted as maximum angle of
contact possible for successful operation when the strip
first comes to a line contact with the roll before surface
during this study.
The analysis is based on the balance of the powers in-
volved in the operation. The internal power of deformation
W j ,roll power WR,front and back Wbpull powers, as
well as frictional losses G between the rolls and the strip
are computed. To simpllf: the computations the following
general assumptions were made:
(1) The rolls were considered as rigid cylindrical
bodies with no elastic deflections.
(2) The strip was assumed to be of plastic material
with linear strain hardening and with no elastic
deformation.
(3) The deformations in the strip were assumed to be
of the plane strain nature and are described in Fig. 1.
(4) The coefficient of friction is assumed to be con-
stant along the arc of contact.
(5) The stress distribution between the roll and the
strip was assumed to be as described by equations (33)
and (45). I n words, only the strain-hardening effect was
considered, while the effect of friction on the distribution
was neglected. It is easy to show that the error in the
criteria for maximum reduction introduced by this as-
sumption is expected to be small. The gain in simplicity
is overwhelming.
(6) The distribution of the axial stress introduced by
the front and back pull was chosen arbitrarily, but
reasonably in equation (44). The same argument about
simplicity holds here as in paragraph (5).
(7) The angle of contact e2 of the strip with the roll
is small.
The independent process variables as conceived in this
study are aoi,aof,try Roy U, a.& ad, and p, while ti, r, and
cc2 are the major dependent process variables sought in this
paper.

Notation
e, Discrepancy between directly measured co-
efficient of friction and that computed with
equation (9).
F Resultant frictional force.
Fa Front pull force.
Fb Back pull force.
1 ‘NEUTRAL POINT
i /
Q Standardized unit, Q = p
RO Roll radius.
r
s=s
(
Percentage reduction, r = 100 I--
3 .
Instantaneous value of the arc along which the
L I integration is done,

- - L

‘4
Fig. 2. Direction of resultant pressure and of frictional
forces at maximum reduction
t
T

tf
Torque.
Instantaneous value of the thickness along
which the integration is done.
Final thickness of the strip.
Initial thickness of the strip.
ti
f Friction forces. U Circumferential velocity of the roll.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Val 174 No 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 MAXIMUM REDUCTION I N COLD STRIP ROLLING 867

Velocity of the strip at an intermediate thick- (3) Power supplied by the front pull on the strip is
ness.
Velocity of the strip at exit. wa= truxfU= tfVf"Xf (3) . . .
Velocity of the strip at entrance. (4) The power supplied by the rolls is 2 w R ; after the
Velocity of the strip at neutral point. frictional losses 2Wf are deducted, it becomes 2( W,- Wf).
Power introduced by the front pull. It was easier to compute ( w R - W f ) than to compute
Power deducted by the back pull. each power separately. The result is
Frictional power losses.
Power of internal deformation.
Roll power.
Instantaneous value of the angle along which
the integration is done.
Angle of contact.
Angle at which the speed of the strip is equal
--2
d3
koi+"a ti-tf t i ] ) taIl-lJ(;- 1)

to that of the roll.

Strain.
Strain rate.
Component of strain rate tensor.
Strain rate along the arc.
Radial strain rate.
Strain rate in the direction perpendicular to When (4)
d, and i,. Uof-Uoi g a0 w "
o +f
UOi

Coefficient of friction. 2
Coefficient of friction computed with equa-
tion (9).
Stress.
Stress components.
Yield limit at uniaxial load at finalthickness.
Yield limit at uniaxial load at initial thickness.
Stress along R, 8, and Z directions.
Back pull stress.
Front pull stress.
Yield limit at uniaxial load, a. m
2
Time. The condition that the sum of the powers vanishes is
2(@R-@f)+wa = Wi+@b . (5)
RESULTS Inserting the values computed earlier into this equation as
The five main powers involved are computed in Appendix I followed in Appendix I gives
and the results are as follows:
(1) The internal power of deformation is
-
1I
Wi = - .2v f t f {
d3 -1
["oi+"of-"oi
ti-tf
ti
:;
~--?-("of-"oi)

For moderate strain-hardening effect in which

ilI
-(Go f -uoJ -k "xb-"xf
-
2
1

it is seen I
The second of equations (1) can be obtained by integration
of equation (6) as given by Ford (5). - ["oi+"- ti-tf ti]}x

(2) Power consumed by the back pull on the strip is

u';b = tfuXbu= tfVfJxb * * (2)
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 174 NO 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

868 B. AVITZUR

For

it is seen that

P = f J(;) X

FINAL THICKNfSS. I/-'".

Fig. 4. The efJect of roll radius on maximum reduction
p = 0'075. Uxf = Uxb = 0.

x tan-1 J(;-1)

For
Ooj-uoi 4 a0 M o+ao;
f (J

80 t I
2 I I

and uXf= arb = 0 it is seen that

Equations (6) and (7) can be solved either for p or for

maximum reduction possible for a known p. When the I I I
0.100 0-200 0-300 0-400 0.500
maximum reduction is to be found, a successive approxi- FINAL THICKNESS, p i n .
mation method has to be used. Any degree of accuracy can
be achieved. u p = 0.07. Ro = 10 in. uxf = 0.

0.05 0.100 0'200 0'300 0'400 0.500

FINAL THICKNESS, ?-in.

Fig. 3. The effect of f.iction on maximum reduction

Ro = 2 in. u,b = u,f = 0.

STANDARDIZED UNIT, Q
Maximum reduction possible, predicted by equation (6b)
for a wide variety of conditions, is presented in Figs. 3-7.
The effects of each of the individual variables such as thick- b e = = . r=f{L' ,/$ $}
-00

ness t, roll radius Roy coefficient of friction p, and magni-

tude of front and/or back pulls are clearly illustrated. Fig. 5. The effect of back pull on maximum reduction
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol174 No 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 MAXIMUM REDUCTION IN COLD STRIP ROLLING 869

z T
3 0.2

5r
4 20 =o$l.'
/ /
O ,

0'
0

a
I
0.100

p = 0.07.
I
0.200 0300
I

FINAL THICKNESS, y-in.

Ro = loin. mb = 0.
I
0100
I
0.500

Fig. 6. The effect of front pull on maximum reduction

b oxb =O. r =f{p'
-
\ Ro
z} 00

80,
I I I I 1

i
Q
U

0
0. I
0.2

0.4
06
08
0.400 0500
FINAL THICKNESS, Lf-In. STANDARDIZED UNIT. Q
u p = 0.07. Ro = 10 in.

Fig. 7. The effect of simultaneous front and back pulls on maximum reduction

DISCUSSION The coefficient of friction can be computed from the

Bland (6) has suggested the experimental procedure to data of the above-mentioned experiment by the use of
determine the average coefficient of friction in strip rolling equation (6) where no front pull is applied (ud = 0). The
under various conditions which was followed by Whit- resulting equation when only a moderate strain hardening
ton (2) (3). The metal was rolled with back pull, and the effect is expected is
amount of back p d was adjusted through a range up to the
point where forward slip was eliminated. With no forward
slip the neutral point is at the exit. The mill was equipped
tL = fJ(') x
so that the torque T and the separation force P were h-l+O"b
t.
measured. Equation (3) of Whitton's and Ford's paper (3) tf - 2
which was introduced by Bland (6) states that at the con-
1/3 ag
dition of no forward slip the coefficient of friction is

I*=-
T
. . . (8)
PRO
. -a0 --
d3 tf
From the measured torque and separation force, Whitton
has computed the coefficients of friction for various metals,
. . . (9)
surface conditions and lubricants, and his results are Columns 1-9 of Table 1 are data readings as recorded
presented in Table 2 of his paper. during Whitton's (2) (3) experiment. A full account of this
Proc Instn Mech Engrs VoI I74 No 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

870 B. AVITZUR

Table 1. Comparison of the CoeBcients of friction according to equations (8) and (9)
(The values for colums 1-9 are from Whitton’s (2) experimental work.)
Roll radius, Ro = 2 in.

Test Lubricant Nominal Zoefficient Initial Final Material, Back Coefficient Dis-
No. reduction, of thickness, thickness, yield pull of crepancy
r, per cent friction, ti, in. t f , in. limit, stress, friction in the
IL 00 ton/in2 oxb ton/inZ according equation
to equa- of coeffi-
tion (9), cient of
pc friction,
e,, per cent
~-
r=
100 E f
ti
1 2 4 9 I 10 I 11

MILD STEEL: ANNEALED THICKNESS t o = 0.0705, SMOOTH ROLLS

5 None, rolls and strip clean
anddry . 1 15.0 0.085 0.0708 0.0602 28.0 7.33 0.0915 7.6
4 Paraffinoil . 1 17.0 0.080 0.07 0.0585 29.0 6.5 0.0799 0
12 Paraffin oil+l peE ceni
stearic acid . . 1 17.0 0075 0.0706 0.0583 29.0 5.93 0.0779 3.9
13 Paraffin oil+l per ceni
stearic acid+0.6 per cent
sulphur . 1 17.5 0.071 0.0711 0.0587 29.0 5.15 0.0723 1.8
11 __
Paraffin+5 per cent copper
stearate . 2 16.8 0.063 0.0606 0.0504 37.0 6.17 0,0655 4.0
24 Paraffin +5 per cent H o d i u i
stearate . 3 24-1 0.060 0.0524 0.0398 43.5 7.81 0.0619 3.2
9 ~ a r a f f i n +per
~ cent lead
stearate . 2 17.3 0.058 0.0609 0.0504 36.5 5.75 0.0627 8.1
10 ParaffinSS per cent lead
oleate. . 2 17.4 0.058 0.0609 0.0503 37.0 6.53 0.0669 15.3
26 Paraffin+l per cent lauric
acid . 3 24.3 0.054 0.0506 0.0383 44.0 6.28 0.0560 -3.4
25 Paraffm+5 pe; cent sod&
oleate. . . 4 23.3 0.049 0.0438 0.0336 46.5 7.0 0.0531 8.4
28 Paraffin+l per cent pal-
mitic acid . 3 22.4 0.043 0.0509 0.0395 43.0 4.36 0.0500 16.3
6 68/615 graphite in oil 1 15.6 0.072 0.0706 0.0596 28.5 5.75 0.0782 8.6
20 615 graphite in oil . 4 24.5 0.047 0.045 0.034 46.5 5.5 0.0494 5.1
7 Vacuum R.O. 546 . 1 15.4 0.070 0.0707 0.0598 28.0 6.0 0.0797 13.9
8 Vacuum R.O. 950 . 1 15.6 0.069 0.0708 0.0598 28.5 5.73 0.0778 12.8
29 Vacuum R.O. 40A . 1 17.0 0.061 0.071 0.0589 29.0 6.42 0.08 15 33.6
16 Shel1P.E. 6 . 3 23.2 0.050 0.051 0.0392 43.0 4.15 0.0498 0
21 Shell P.E. 6 . 4 27.9 0.053 0.043 0.031 48.0 7.7 0.0548 3.4
18 Esso Baywest. . 4 27.5 0.050 0.0419 0.0304 48.0 7.5 0.0532 6.4
31 Esso Pale 885 . . 3 24.6 0.052 0-0483 0.0364 45 .O 6.81 0.0561 7.9
17 Esso Paranox 108 . 2 21.4 0.054 0.0607 0.0477 38.5 3.86 0.0541 0
14 Olive oil . 2 18.1 0.057 0.0607 0.0497 38.0 4.98 0.0584 2.5
23 Castor oil . 4 23.2 0.045 0.0435 0.0334 46.0 6.2 0.0504 12.0
32 Lanoline . 4 27.3 0.041 0.0404 0.0294 48.0 3.43 0.0425 3.7
27 Camphor flowers . 4 27.2 0.038 0.0423 0.0308 48.0 2.73 0.0418 10.0
HIGH CONDUCTIVITY COPPER: ANNEALED THICKNESS to = 0.0625, SMOOTH ROLLS
1 None, rolls and strip clean
anddry . . 1 29.0 0.093 0.0647 0.046 0.0886 -4.7
75 Water . . I 0.075 0.0625 0.0461 0.0805 7.3
78 Paraffin oil . . I 0.067 0.062 0.0470 0.0790 17.9
35 68/615 graphite in oil . 2 0.061 0.0465 0.0314 0.0621 1.8
36 615 graphite in oil .. 3 0.054 0.0334 0.0211 30.0 I 6.88 0.0554 2.6
77 Solvac . . .. I 25.2 0.065 0.062 0.0468 17.0 4.12 0.0771 18.6
66 Palm oil . . I 26.85 0.076 0.062 0.0453 17.3 4.7 0.0817 7.5
38 Olive oil . . 2 30.2 0.058 0.052 0.036 25.5 3.94 0.0592 2.1
34 Castor oil . . 3 34.1 0.046 0.039 0.026 29.0 4.8 0.0532 15.7

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol I74 No 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 MAXIMUM REDUCTION IN COLD STRIP ROLLING 871

Table I-continued

Test Lubricant Pass Nominal Coefficient Initial Final Material, Back :o&cient Dis-
No. No. reduction, of thickness, thickness, yield pull of crepancy
r, per cent friction, ti, in. tf, m. limit, stress, friction in the
P 00 ton/$ uxb ton/in* according equation
to equa- of coeffi-
tion (9), cient of
PC friction,
e,, per cent

t= -PC--P
u--
100 fi-t.f P
ti x 100
-4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

63/37BRASS: ANNEALED THICKNESS t n = 0.0650,SMOOTH ROLLS

2 Rolls and strip clean and
dry * 1 15.1 0.093 0.0657 0.056 24.0 7.8 0.1023 10.0
3 Paraffin oil . 1 15.0 0.067 0.0658 0.0559 24.0 4.72 0.0734 9.6
79 Water . 1 29.2 0.061 0.0622 0.044 31.0 5.17 0.0667 9.3
85 68/615graphiie in oil 3 38.6 0.055 0.0414 0.0254 463 9.2 0-0587 6.7
84 615 graphite in oil . 2 27.8 0.049 0.056 0.040 39.0 3.6 0.0533 8.8
41 Vacuum R.O. 950 . 4 22.2 0.052 0.0424 0.033 44.5 7.3 0.0542 4.0
40 Vacuum R.O. 40A . 3 22.4 0.059 0.0541 0.042 39.0 6.7 0.0614 4.1
83 Solvac 3 33.1 0.046 0.0302 0.0202 51.0 9.62 0.0493 I .2
81 olive oii 1 33.8 0.057 0.0631 0.0418 32.0 3.7 0.0618 8.4
43 Lanoline . . . 6 28.0 1 0.043 0.025 0.018 52.0 11.0 0.0459 6.7

ALUMINIUM: ANNEALED THICKNESS t o 7 0.0675,SMOOTH ROLLS

49 1 Rolls and strip clean and
1 23.5 0.092 0.068 0.052 73 2.19 0.0906 -1.5
1 24.5 0.081 0.068 0.0513 7.5 1.72 0,0788 -2.7
54 Paraffin oil+l per cent
oleic acid . . 1 24.8 0.059 0.067 0.0504 7.5 0.88 0~0610 3.4
63 Paraffin oi1+5 per cent
sodium oleate . 3 27.9 0.059 0.0333 0.024 11.75 3.03 0.0589 -0.2
47 Par& oi1+5 per ten;
lead oleate . 3 27.5 0.056 0.0386 0.028 11.5 4.02 0.0741 32.3
45 ~ a & n + 5 per c e i t lead
oleate-!-6 per cent sul-
phur. . 2 30.0 0.049 0.052 0.0362 9-75 2.24 0.0688 40.4
61 615 graphite inoil . . 1 33.5 0.055 0.068 0.0452 7.75 0.89 0.0632 14.9
56 VacuumR.0. 546 . . 3 30.0 0.082 0.0274 0.0192 12.5 5.2 0.0678 -17.3
64 Palm oil. . 3 38.0 0.064 0.035 0.0217 11.75 3.36 0,0612 -4.4
59 Castor oil . 3 21.6 1 0.057 0.043 0.0337 10.5 2.33 0.0622 9.1
-

Test Pass Initial Final Yield limit Coefficient of friction

No. No. thickness, thickness,
ti, in. tf, in. At At Average, According According According
initial final 00 tonlin2 to equa- to first to
thickness, thickness, tion (9), of equa- Whitton,
uoi ton/in2 uof ton/in’ tions (6) P
-- PC

a ‘foof
00 x AL--
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0
10 2 0.0609 0.0503 34 40 37 0.0669 0.0645 0.058
26 3 0.0506 0.0383 40 48 44 0.056 0.054 0.054
25 4 0.0438 0.0336 44 49 46.5 0.053 0.052 0.049

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 174 No 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

872
work is given in (2). A condensed description and tables
with partial data are given in (3). Column 5 in Table 1
of the present paper gives the coefficient of fiction as
computed by Whitton according to equation (S), while
column 10 presents the coefficient of friction as computed
byequation (9). The discrepancybetween the two approaches
is given in column 11. Of the long list of readings recorded
by Whitton (2) (3), only a few representative cases are shown
in the present Table 1. Table 2 compares the solutions
according to equation (6a), and equation (9) with Whitton’s
.measured values of the coefficient of friction.
About 6 per cent of the readings show over 25 per cent
discrepancy. Regarding all the difficulties encountered in
any experimental determination of coefficients of friction,
it seems safe to state that the analysis is not contradicted
by the data. It is therefore concluded that the energy
approach is correct. This approach results in an analytical
expression for the prediction of maximum possible
reduction.
Based on equations (6), a simple procedure is suggested
here for the determination of the coefficientof friction under
actual working conditions which is a modification of
Whitton’s experiment. Measurements of the torque and
separation force are not required. Almost any mill can be
used.
Procedure
A strip of arbitrary original thickness ti is rolled while
screwing down the roll until maximum bite is achieved.
The best choice is no applied front or back pull, because
then the values uXf= uxb = 0 are known without
measurements. The yield limits uOiand yor are known or
can be measured. Inserting these values lnto equation (6)
the apparent coefficient of friction for the specific working
conditions of the mill can now be calculated.
By inspection of equation (7) it can be seen that the
maximum reduction r, which is a function only of the
initial ti and final tf thicknesses, is implicitly expressible as
the following function:
where
It is thus most convenient to use the quantity Q in the
graphical presentation of the effect of the process variables
on maximum reduction. For more detailed explanation of
the utilization of the standardized dimensionless terms,
uxf and 3,
Q, 2 2
see Appendix I (Figs. 5b, 6b
-=Q -00
d 3 d 3
and 76).
It will be assumed that in any mill the actual apparent
coefficient of friction is easily determined. Figs. 3-7 have
been plotted from equation (6b) for easy determination
Proc Instn Mech Engi-s
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
B. AVITZUR
of the maximum reduction for a wide range of the variables.
If the range is to be extended, more graphs can be easily
constructed.
CONCLUSIONS
The energy approach yields a criterion for maximum reduc-
tion in cold strip rolling with front and back pull, Further-
more, a procedure is suggestedfor the experimentaldetermi-
nation of the apparent coefficient of friction, the simplicity
of which enables it to be applied on any standard mill.
The energy approach appears promising as a simple,
short method for the determination of the torque and power
requirements in operation of cold strip rolling.
The effect of each of the process variables on the maxi-
mum possible reduction can be studied from Figs. 3 to 7.
It should be borne in mind that the rolls were assumed to be
rigid bodies and that flattening was neglected. The graphs
are therefore not reliable for the range where tr approaches
zero. The following observations can be made:
(1) Larger reductions are possible with higher values
of the coefficient of friction. (This phenomenon is well
known qualitatively.)
(2) Larger reductions are possible for thinner strips.
As the strip gets larger this effect diminishes.
(3) Higher reductions are feasible with bigger rolls.
This is one advantage of big-diameter rolls which should
not be overlooked (Fig. 4).
(4) Increasing the back-pull stress decreases the
maximum reduction. With high back pull and too small
a coefficient of friction a condition can be reached where
no reduction is possible at all.
(5) With no back pull, and changing front pull,
different effects can be expected. Usually, increase in
fiont pull causes an increase in maximum possible
reduction. However, in some combinations of the
variables, an increase in front pull can cause a decrease
in maximum possible reduction. This is explained as
follows:increasing the front pull decreases the separation
force. Decreased separation force with constant coefficient
of friction causes a decrease in the frictional force. If the
loss in frictional force is not fully compensated by gains
in front pull force, then the maximum reduction is
reduced (Fig. 6).
(6) Simultaneous increase in both front and back pull
causes a decrease in maximum possible reduction, as
shown in Fig. 7.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Dr. C. W. Phillips for his
guidance during the study and for assistance in preparing
the report. The author is also indebted to Dr. I?. W.
Whitton for the experimental data as well as for his com-
ments during the course of the study. It was a pleasure to
receive help from Mr. N. H. Miller who programmed the
computations, and from Mr. F. J. Semer in processing the
data.
Vol174 No 32 1960
 M I M U M REDUCTION IN COLD STRIP ROLLING a73

APPENDIX I
Fig. 1 describes the geometry of the process and the assumed
pattern of the deformations.
Equations (10) to (26) establish the relations between the angular . . . (28)
position a, the thickness t and the velocity v of the process. dS dS
The stress and strain fields
S =2Ra . . . . . (10)
sin a = t / 2 R . . . . . (11)
And the strain-rate field becomes
Therefore
S=-
sin a
ta
. . . . . (12)
t = tj+2Ro(l-~os a) . . . . (13)
ForO<a<z
2
a3 a5 a7
sin a = a--+--- All other i i j = 0
3! T! 7!+.'.
Power balance a t maximum reduction
cos a == 1 -""+---+
a4
2 ! 4! 6!
a6
. .. The internal power of deformation
With very small angles a 1 The power per unit volume (7)is
sin a M a . . . . . (14)
C O S ~M 1-z .a2
. , . . (15) . . (31)
Therefore Integrating over the volume, per unit width gives

S M t = tj+Roaz = Ro($+a2) . . (16)

2
aa = 2Roa . . . . . (17)
And for future reference

Therefore
From equation (28)

and for linear strain hardening

ti-t uof -uoi
00 = uoi+(uof-uoi) t;-tf= uoi+- ti -tf [ti-(tf+Roa2)1

. . 4 (33)
From volume constancy are derived
Inserting these equations into equation (32) yields

v =L, V ? ! f X L . . (24)
1+-Ro a2 Ro t f + , Z
tf Ro
For the case discussed here, when the neutral point is at the exit
( a , = O)J
wj= U . . . . (25) .
v=wfx1=2Lfxux- 1 . .
Ro 2 + , 2
Ro
Ro g+az
(26)

Computing the strain field, gives

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol174 No 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

an B. AVITZUR

With equations (20) and (21) is obtained

The power consumed by the back pull is

. . . (50)
. . . (38) or
The power supplied by the front pull is 'Jxf-Oxb ti
wR-Wf = -tfpU
Wa = Favf = a x f t f U . . * (39)
The frictional power wf (Fig. 2) is
wf=-L
a2

O
pq(U-v)Roda . . (40)
The rolls power I$R
' is

WR= -Ja=op~aURoda
a2 . . . (41)

puevda . . (42)

Substituting v from equation (26) and assuming p = constant

gives

Let the axial pull be arbitrarily distributed as the yield limit

in equation (33), then

. . . (44)
The form of the yield condition for a plain strain condition is
2
0.3 = UR--
4 3 O0
. . . . (45)
and therefore

. . . (53)
. . . (46) The equation for the power balance is
2(WR-@j)=@i+@b-@a . (54)
And inserting all the individually computed powers it becomes
f

2
'Jxf-'Jxb+- ('Jof-'Joi)
- d3
ti-tf Ro(g+d) . . (48)

From equation (43)are obtained

43
Proc Insrn Mech Engrs Vol174 No 32 I960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 MAXIMUM REDUCTION IN COLD STRIP ROLLING 875

When uof-Uoi -
< o0 z “of +ooi then It is thus seen that when uxf = uxb = 0 and O o f - U o i Q UO,
2 then the maximum reduction can be expressed as a function
of one variable only. Let this variable be called Q so that

In the same.way it is seen that equation (6b) yields implicitly the

relation

r = f { j 3 ; -uo F}
- . . (61)
43 43”O
This dependence is shown in Figs. 5-7.

APPENDIX I1
- ‘Jxb t‘
tf -
OXb

4 3 uo
}. . (57)
(I) LARKE,
REFERENCES
E. C. 1957 ‘The Rolling of Strip, Sheet and Plate’
(Chapman and Hall, Ltd., London).
(2) WHITTON,P. W. 1953 Ph.D. Thesis, London University
‘An Investigation of Surface Friction in Rolling’.
(3) WHITTON, P. W. and FORD, H. 1955 Proc. Instn mech. Engrs,
Equation (7) can be written in the following form: Lond., vol. 169, p. 123, ‘Surface Friction and Lubrication
in Cold Strip Rolling’.
ht’ (4) VAN ROOYEN, G. T. and BACKOFEN, W. A. 1957 J . Iron St.
2 tf =- P
. . . (59)
Inst., vol. 186, p. 235, ‘Friction in Cold Rolling’.
tan-1 J($-I) J($) (5) FORD,H. 1948 Proc. Znstn mech. Engrs, Lond., vol. 159,
p. 115, ‘Research into the Deformation of Metals by
Because the maximum reduction r is a function of the left-hand Cold Rolling’.
side of the equation, it therefore follows that r is also a function of (6) BLAND,D. R. and FORD,H. 1948 Proc. Znstn mech. Engrs,
the right-hand side of that equation Lond., vol. 159, p. 162, ‘The Calculation of Roll Force
and Torque in Cold Strip Rolling with Tension’.
f U - l
(7) HOFFMAN,0. and SACHS,G. 1953 ‘Introduction to the
. . . .(60) Theory of Plasticity for Engineers’, p. 54, Equation (5.43)
.=it&)) (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York).

Communications
Dr. J. M.Alexander, B.Sc. (Eng.) (Member), wrote to say
that he thought the author’s whole approach to the problem
of cold strip rolling was dangerously misleading. By neg-
lecting roll flattening he had achieved a simplified theory,.
although that was a moot point, bearing in mind the number
of equations contained in Appendix I. The main point at
issue was whether the equations he had developed truly
represented the behaviour of material during cold rolling.
It was very easy to show that they did not, as follows.
Consider a rolling mill with 20-in.diameter steel rolls,
rolling without tensions a strip of steel to a final thickness
of 0.016 in., which was a typical gauge for sheet material.
To simp@ the calculations, let it be assumed that there
were no applied tensions, and that the strip had previously
been cold-rolled so that it could be assumed to be non-
hardening. What would be the maximum reduction which
could be applied to that strip, to bring it to the h a l thick-
ness of 0.016 in. ?
Using the author’s analysis, the value of Q = pz/(R,/tf)
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
would be 1.75. Reference to the author’s Fig. 5 showed
that for that value of Q the maximum reduction achievable
would be almost 100 per cent. Those figures actually
applied to rolls of 20 in. diameter and p = 0.07. Thus,
according to the author’s analysis, with 20-in.diameter rolls
and p = 0.07 the maximum reduction which could be
achieved to produce a steel strip of final thickness 0.016 in.
was at least 99 per cent, i.e. from an initial thickness of
1.6 in.! In view of that, the author must certainly agree
that it would be possible to roll a steel strip from 0.030 to
0-016 in. in the mill with 20-in. diameter rolls. In fact, it
was not possible to roll the strip below a thickness of about
0.024 in., due to roll flattening.
The author had neglected completely the fact that there
was a limiting thickness in rolling, i.e. a thickness below
which it was impossible to cause permanent deformation.
When that thickness was attained, increased roll force
merely served to flatten the roll surface still farther, thus
increasing the length of the arc of contact and introducing
Vol174 No 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

876
longitudinal compressive stresses due to the increased
frictional forces at the surfaces. Those additional longi-
tudinal compressive stresses suppressed yielding of the strip
so that it could not be reduced farther.
The problems of ‘maximum reduction’ and ‘limiting
thickness’ had been discussed exhaustively at a symposium
held by the Institute of Metals at their spring meeting in
1960. The theoretical background to those two problems
had been discussed by Ford and Alexander*, and an
analysis presented for determining the limiting thickness
in which both the elasticity of the rolls and of the strip had
been allowed for. The author had neglected the elasticity
of both rolls and strip in his analysis, which rendered it
quite unrealistic.
The limiting thickness was given by the equation
14*22p2R(1-vv,2) 9.06pR(1--~,2)
h,, =
[ Es + Er
](m~-t)
. . * (62)
where R was the undeformed roll radius, E,, vr Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio for the rolls and E,, vs Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio for the strip; Y was the yield
stress in uniaxial tension, m, a factor between 1 and 2 / 4 3
( 2 / 4 3 for yield criterion of von Mises), and t the mean of
the back and front tensions.
For steel rolls and steel strip, E, = E, = E, vr = Y, = v,
equation (62) reduced to
Ln= (9*06+14.22~)pR(1-v2)(m
E
Y-.f)
Considering the example just quoted, with p = 0.07,
equation (63) showed that the minimum thickness which
could be rolled was 0.0245 in. Therefore it was seen that
the author’s theory gave a completely unrealistic result for
a very important case of rolling, and that inaccuracy would
apply to many other important instances.
Viewed in the context of the limiting thickness (equa-
tion (63)), certain of the author’s conclusions were
misleading. He concluded that larger reductions were
possible with higher values of the Coefficient of friaion,
where as it could be seen from equation (63) that the
smaller the coefficient of friction the smaller the limiting
thickness. The implication that it was desirable to have a
high friction coefficient was therefore misleading, since the
rolling-mill manager was usually more interested in
achieving the smallest thickness possible, without a vast
expenditure of power in roll flattening. The author’s con-
clusion that larger reductions were possible with thinner
strips was also misleading. After a certain ‘thinness’ the
effect of roll flattening was so important that it could not
be neglected and enormous expenditure of power was
required to achieve even small reductions.
The author concluded that higher reductions were
feasible with bigger rolls. The larger the roll diameter the
* FORD,H. and ALEXANDER,
J. M. 1960 J . Inst. Metals, vol. 88,
p. 193, ‘Rolling Hard Materials in Thin Gauges-Basic
siderations’.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
COMMUNICATIONS
larger was the limiting thickness and again roll flattening
precluded the attainment of very large reductions. The
author’s final three conclusions that increasing the tensions
decreased the maximum reduction possible were very
difficult to understand. It could be seen from equation (62)
that the higher the tensions the smaller the minimum thick-
ness which could be rolled, so that increased tension was
beneficial from that standpoint. Also, increased tensions
assisted plastic flow of the strip and by reducing the roll
force, reduced the roll flattening, which should again be
beneficial.
There were many other features of the author’s theory
which were untenable, representing as they did an un-
realistic oversimplification of the theory of rolling. Up to
the present the theory of rolling had been developing along
more and more realistic lines, and the principle that roll-
flattening should be allowed for in cold strip rolling had
been tacitly assumed by all writers. It might well be possible
to neglect roll-flattening in the case of hot rolling, when the
material being deformed was considerably softer than the
rolls, so that roll pressures were not so high. Neglect of roll
flattening in cold rolling could only lead to serious errors
in any theory, and while that might not be too disastrous
if it were only ‘trends’ in the process variables which had
been sought, the author claimed much more for his analysis.
He claimed,for example, to be able to predict the maximum
reduction and to be able to determine the friction coefficient
by applying his theory to experimental results. The co-
efficient, he would be determining, in fact, would be a
(63) parameter farther removed from the true friction coefficient
than that determined from the experiments of Whitton and
Ford.
He seemed to have been developing his theory completely
without reference to all the work which had been previously
carried out on that topic. Stonet, Hill and Longman$ and
Simss had all considered the problem of maximum reduc-
tion in cold strip rolling, and developed much more
realistic analyses, since they all allowed for roll flattening.
The author made no mention of the work of those authors;
and it could only be assumed that he was unaware of it.
For that reason, presumably, his notation was quite different
from that generally adopted; which made his analysis
difficult to follow. In any case, the whole theory had been
made unnecessarily complicated. Considering Appendix I
and Fig. 1, for example, it hardly seemed necessary to intro-
duce the curved section of radius R since that concept was
not used in the theory at all. Also, there were nine equations
(from (10) to (18)) required to derive the expression
which was precisely the same as the equation h = ho+ R‘+2
which featured in the theory of Bland and Ford, except
that R‘ was the flattened radius of the roll. That could surely
Con-
*
f STONE,
p. 705.
M. D. 1953 Iron Steel Engr., vol. 30 (Z),p. 61.
HILL,R. and LONGMAN, I. M. 1951 Sheer Metal Ind., vol. 28.
s SIMS,R.B. 1954J. Iron St. Inst., vol. 178,p. 19.
Vol174 No 32 1960
 MAXIMUM REDUCTION IN COLD STRIP ROLLING 817

have been quoted straight away. Also the author’s ‘stan-

dardized unit’, Q, was precisely the same as the parameter
a = pd(R‘/ho)of the theory of Bland and Ford, with the
exception that R’ was, as before, the flattened radius of the
roll. The remark that all other Cii = 0, after equation (30),
was meaningless. For example, the shear strain rates on
planes at 45” to the rolling directions were certainly non-
zero.
Again, the complete neglect of any equations of equili-
brium, leading as it did to the necessity for making the sort
of assumption involved in developing equation (44), was
to be deprecated. There could be little or no justification
for assuming that the axial pull was linearly distributed
between entry and exit, and the correct procedure would
be to investigate equilibrium conditions in the arc of
contact.
To summarize, it was hard to see what contribution the
author had made to the subject. His analysis as it stood
might be applicable as an approximation to the hot-rolling
process, although in that instance the fiictional conditions Fig 8. The movement of the centre planelof the s h p with
would not be those of Coulomb fiiction assumed. He would respect to the jixed point 0
certainly recommend that no use should be made of the
author’s theory without prior reference to the four papers (Fig. 8). Accordingly the x co-ordinate of P should then be
quoted by himself. given by
- x = Ro sin a+R(l-cos a),

Mr. M. Bentwich (Haifa, Israel) wrote that the analysis while R was given by
presented in Appendix I was not very consistent when R Sin a+Ro cos = Ro+tf/2
judged from a purely mathematical standpoint:
Combining the two
(1) Equations (14) and (15) indicated that the functions 1-cos a
sin a and cos a were considered as power series expansions,
which were truncated to retain powers of a of order 2
x = -Ro
(2+- ____
sina
or smaller. If, then, powers of the same order were retained was obtained which yielded upon differentiation
after expanding sin a and carrying out the division in
equation (12), the following was obtained

5
S = sin a M t ( l+$) = Ro[g0+a2( 1 + 3 ) ] If a were considered to be very small or to vanish

which was dissimilar to equation (16) obtained by the

author.
(2) The author’s equation (23), which had been deduced
from the assumption of volume-constancy, would be true
to the order of approximation adhered to by himself i f
(u)o would be constant along the arc of length S, (b) the
velocity of the strip would be in the direction perpendicular
to this arc.
The velocity of Q, an arbitrary point on the strip in con-
tact with the roller, was indeed given by the author’s
equation (27), and its direction was perpendicular to the
instantaneous arc. However, the absolute value of the
velocity of P, a point at the intersection of the instantaneous
arc which included Q and the axis of symmetry of the
system, was not given by equation (27); though, again,
the direction of that velocity was perpendicular to the
arc.
That could be shown by letting the axis of symmetry be
OX, with its origin 0 between the centre of the rolls
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
would be obtained.
Results obtained there deviated from those of the author
+ +
by a factor of (I tf/6Ro) or (1 tf/4R0).The ratios which
appeared in those brackets might m practice be small
compared with a2 and could possibly, therefore, be neg-
lected. Yet that neglect ought to be specified, or else borne
in mind.
Mr. V. H.Guy (Sheffield) wrote that the term ‘maximum
reduction’in cold rolling was one which could be interpreted
in two different ways and it was important to emphasize
that the author’s analysis was concerned only with the
prediction of the maximum reduction which could be
achieved without roll skidding. That should not be confused
with the maximum reduction which could be made before
excessive elastic deformation of the rolls precluded further
plastic reduction of the strip. In the discussion the terms
Vol174 No 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

878 COMMUNICATIONS

‘maximum bite’ and ‘maximum reduction’ would be used
to distinguish between those two phenomena. It was, in
fact, that latter restriction which was most important from
an industrial standpoint and considerableresearch had been
devoted to an analysis of the problem and to suggesting
methods of increasing the maximum reduction. In general
the conditions necessary for high rolling reductions were
the exact antithesis of those which the author postulated
as being important for achieving maximum bite. For
example, larger reductions on thin tinplate were possible
only by reducing the coefficient of friction, reducing roll
diameter or by increasing the tensions.
It was difficult to justify an analysis which neglected the
effect of roll flattening, particularly where large reductions
were involved. Orowan* had shown that even for relatively
small reductions it was important to allow for the elastic
deformation of the rolls and that the errors involved in
neglecting the effect increased with the reduction. The
theoretical deformed roll radius for some of the experiments
quoted in Table 1 had been calculated and were shown in
Table 3. Those figures, however, were for relatively small
strain compression test and hence his values of u should be
used directly and all reference to the 2/.\/3 in equations
(1)-(7) should be omitted when calculating from his results.
The author justified the assumption that uof-uoi -g
uo w (uOf+uoi)/2 which had been used in calculating the
values of p in Table 1, by comparing the results with three
values calculated by the full theory (Table 2). In each
instance, however, a pass on a work-hardened material had
been chosen and it was for reductions on annealed stock
that the greatest error was likely to arise. Since 40 per cent
of the data in Table 1 were for annealed material, it was
worth comparing the results of the two calculations under
those conditions. That had been done in Table 4 after cor-
recting the equations for the 2 / 4 3 factor. The discrepancies
resulting from the approximations were particularly marked
for the annealed copper and steel and the overall agreement
with Whitton’s results was worse when the correct value
of the yield stress in plane compression was used.
Table 4. Comparison of the coeficient of friction according
to equations (6u), (8), and (9)

Table 3. Deformed roll radius for selected results from

Table 1
Test
No.
1 Material 1 1
Pass Coefficient of friction
I I
According According According
Test No. 1 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 / 2 6 / 4 1 to equa- to equa- to
tion (9) tion (6a) Whitton
Deformedroll radius, inch I 2.28 1 2.26 1 2.46 1 2.38 1 2.44 _________
1 Copper 1 0.106 0.083 0.093
I 1 I I I
13 Steel 1 0.088 0.075 0.071
25 Steel 4 0.056 0.056 0.049
diameter rolls and for larger rolls much greater changes in
diameter were possible-a 30 per cent reduction on 0.035 in.
mild steel of tensile strength 45 ton inch-2 using 10 in. As developed in the text the theory predicted imaginary
diameter rolls would result in a deformed roll diameter of results for some conditions-a fact which was not im-
some 18 in. One consequence of neglecting roll flattening mediately obvious from Figs. 3 to 7. In Fig. 9 was shown
was that it led to the prediction that the maximum bite for
strip rolled without tensions would be independent of the
mechanical properties of the material-equation (7). That
was known to be false.
A further criticism of the author’s analysis was that the
effect of friction on the stress distribution in the roll gap
had been neglected. It was difficult to reconcile the author’s
statement that the assumption resulted in small errors with
previously published work showing the magnitude of the
friction hill. A number of workers had measured the
pressure distribution in the roll gap and reference to an
original paper by Siebel and Lueg-t would show that the
maximum pressure could be as great as three times the
yield strength of the material being rolled. I I I I I I I
The Hoffman and Sachs derivation of theinternal power of 0 0.1 02 03 0.4 05 0.6 07
INITIAL THICKNESS, t,-inch
deformation, equation (31), assumedthat the yield stress used
in the calculationwas derived from tensile tests. Thus a cor- Fig. 9. Effect of roll radius on maximum bite
rection factor 2/2/3 was used to allow for the plane strain p = 0.075.
conditions of cold rolling. Whitton, however, used a plane Oxf = O x b = 0.

* E. 1948 R o c . Instn mech. Engrs., Lond., vol. 150,

OROWAN, some of the data of Fig. 4 replotted with the ingoing thick-
p. 152. ness as abscissa. For any given ingoing gauge and roll radius,
t SIEBEL, E. and LUEG,
W. 1933 Mitt. K.-Wilh.-Inst. Eisenforsch.,
two possible reductions were predicted. A similar effect
vol. 15, p. 1.
Proc Inrtn Mech Engrs Vol 174 No 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 MAXIMUM REDUCTION IN COLD STRIP ROLLING
was shown in Fig. 10 where the maximum bite was shown
as a function of the coefficient of friction for a constant
ingoing gauge. The larger of the two bites was obviously
imaginary since slipping would occur at the lower draft.
Although the author had qualified his conclusions by
stating that the curves were probably unreliable when t ,
approached zero he had given no indication of the limits of
validity. In Fig. 9 it was suggested that the theory was
0 “2
005 0.06 0.07
COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION,p
Fig. 10. Effect of coeficient of fiction on maximum bite
Ro = 10 in.
t; = 0.4 in.
Uzi = U x b = 0.
unreliable over the whole range which was of particular
interest to the cold rolling industry. For a coefficient of
friction of 0.075 the theory was not applicable for ingoing
gauges of less than 0.5 and 0.25 in. for strip rolled with
rolls of radius 10 and 5 in. respectively.
Professor G. T. van Rooyen (Pretoria) wrote that the
energy method for deriving at operating forces and power
requirements for plastic deformation processes was a well-
known technique. One of the greatest difficulties en-
countered in that approach was that of evaluatingthe energy
losses in the process. Energy losses due to friction could
generally only be found when the friction coefficient, pres-
sure distribution as well as the relative velocity of slipping
was known. Energy losses due to redundant strain (accom-
panying non-homogeneous deformation) were even more
difficult to calculate. Those factors in the engineering
approach were generally taken care of by means of a defor-
mation efficiency. The fact that the author did not consider
energy losses due to redundant strain could therefore be
expected to limit the applicability of the results to such
instances where the friction coefficient and the accompany-
ing reductions were small.
The method suggested by the author for determining the
fkiction coefficientby rolling with increasing reduction until
Proc Instn Mech Enps
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
879
complete stalling occurred when neither back or front
tension was applied was also suggested by calculations of
forward slip*. It could be shown, using the simplifying
assumptions of a constant coefficient of friction, an ideal
plastic material and homogeneous deformation with a uni-
form pressure distribution, that forward slip reached a
maximum value when the contact angle a2 was equal to the
friction angle tan-’ p. The analysis showed that forward
slip then decreased with further reduction until a point was
reached where the forward slip became zero when the
neutral point had advanced to the exit point and stalling of
the strip took place. When that occurred the friction angle
was half of the contact angle*. A friction coefficient under
those conditions could similarly be derived from a simple
force analysis. Using the same notation as that of the author
and the previously mentioned simplifying assumptions, a
force equilibrium when stalling occurred could be estab-
r
lished such that:
/oazuR.Ro.sinada = p.~~.R~.cosada
therefore
1-cos “2
p=-
sin a2
=a-
2 * . .
It would be noticed that equation (64) was identical with
that derived by considering forward slip and that it
depended only on the draught and the roll radius. When
account was taken of both work hardening and the friction
hill the maximum reduction would be found even greater
than that given by equation (64). A number of years
earlier he had attempted that technique by rolling a strip
which had been tapered in the rolling direction such that
the thin end had entered the roll gap first. The use of a
tapered strip thus had eliminated the need for adjusting the
roll gap during rolling in order to obtain larger reductions.
Experimentally it had, however, been found impractical
since the draught required had been far in excess of the
capacity of the mill available unless the friction coefficient
had been very small
It was, of interest, to compare the friction coefficients
derived by equation (64) and the author’s equation (7) since
exactly the same initial assumptions had been used. The
results for a roll of 20 in. diameter were tabulated in
Table 5.
A comparison of the friction coefficients showed agree-
ment at certain points while they disagreed rather widely
at other points. The friction coefficients as calculated with
equation (7) showed the rather puzzling result that once a
certain reduction had been reached, increased reductions
could be obtained with lower and lower fiiction coefficients
which contradicted experience and appeared to reflect on
the accuracy of equation (7).
* UNDERWOOD, L. R. 1952 ‘The Rolling of Metals’, vol. 1, pp. 22,
23, Fig. 3 (Chapman and Hall, Ltd, London).
Vol174 No 32 I960
880 COMMUNICATIONS

Table 5. Comparison of .friction coefficientscalculated Equation (6) and its reduced form equation (7) were
by equations (64)an;-( 7) used to establish the results in Fig. 3 through 7, from
which the conclusionsregarding the behaviour of the system
ti,
parameters were drawn. Nowhere in this development were
P
in. the conditions for the equilibrium of the forces acting on
per cent Equation (64: Equation (7) the strip considered. Even though the effect of the surface
___-
4.75 5 0.08 0.075 shearing forces on the strip had been neglected in establish-
4.50 10 0.12 0.109 ing the distribution of axial stress through the contact
4 20 0.16 0.102
3 40 0.24 0.205
2 60 0.30 0.232 I
1 80 0.35 0.230 // I
0.5 90 0.38 0.206
0.25 95 0.40 0.175
0.1 98 0.41 0.137
0.5 0.45 10 0.035 0.034
0.5 0.40 20 0.050 0.048
0.5 0.30 40 0.07 1 0.065
0.5 0.20 60 0.087 0.073
0.5 0.10 80 0.10 0.073
0.5 0.05 90 0.106 0.065
0.5 0.025 95 0.1 10 0,055
0.5 0.010 98 0.112 0.043

He was of the opinion that the average apparent friction

coefficients obtained with the above technique or that of
Pavlov by purposely stalling the strip by the application of
back tension were of rather limited value since it gave rather
limited information on the mechanism by which lubri-
cation occurred and about the possible variation of the
friction coefficient over the contact surface. Ideally an
experimental method was required which would yield
instantaneous values of friction coefficient at any particular
point under the actual working conditions rather than when
the whole strip stalls*.

Dr. A. S. Weinstein and Dr. C. F. Zorowski (Pitts-

burgh, Pa.) wrote that the use of a power balance by the Fig. 11
author was an interesting approach to the solution of the
cold-strip-rolling problem. That method of solution coupled region (equation (44)) those forces could not be neglected
with the simplifying assumptions governing the process in considering the equilibrium of the forces acting on the
provided a convenient closed-form solution relating the strip. That could be serious in the problem of maximum
independent and dependent parameters of the system. reduction where the friction forces were all in one direction.
Although those simplifying assumptions restricted the range Referring to Fig. 11, the application of equilibrium to the
of usefulness of the results, the solution was of value because section of strip between the entrance and exit planes
of the ease with which the general behaviour of the system resulted in the following equation :
parameters could be studied within that range.
There was, however, some question concerning the a tf-uxb. ti+2 jiJae.sin a.Ro.da
extensive use that the author had made of equations (6)
and (7). I n developing those equations he had made use of - 2 p J 2 ~ ~ . ~ 0 ~ a . R o =. dOa . . (65)
the yield criterion, equation (45), together with an assumed
distribution for the axial stress (equation (44)) and strain or for small contact angles (a2)
hardening of the material (equation (33)) through the con-
tact region. Equations (49, (44), and (33) were ultimately
substituted into the general power equation to obtain the
final result in the form of equation (6). .
(66) . .
The second term of that equation could be integrated
* VANROOYEN,G. T.and BACKOFEN,
W. A. 1960 Int.J. mech. Sci., using equation (46) for us. That would result in an inde-
vol. !, p. 1, ‘A Study of Interface Friction in Plastic Com-
pression’. pendent equation relating the coefficient of friction to other
Proc Instn Meeh Engrs Vol174 No 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 MAXIMUM REDUCTION I N COLD STRIP ROLLING
system parameters analogous to equation (6) of the paper.
For the instance of zero back and front tension and moderate
strain hardening, equation (66), after integration, reduced
to the following relation for p in terms of w2.
That could be rewritten using equation (21) in the form
For s m a l l reductions the second term in the denominator
of equation (68) was small compared to unity and could
be neglected giving
That result might be compared with equation (7) of the
paper which when expanded had the form
. . * (70)
For small reduction all but the first terms of the series
expansions could be neglected resulting in
Comparing equation (71) with (69) it was apparent that the
power balance approach based on the simplifying assump-
tions used by the author satisfied equilibrium only for small
reductions. The discrepancy between the results obtained
from equations (68) and (7) for larger reduction was
illustrated in the following examples. For R, = 2 in.,
zf = 0.2 in., r = 20 per cent equation (68) yielded for the
coefficient of friction
p = 0,0795
From Fig. 3 the value calculated by the author for the same
conditions using equation (7) was
p = 0.075
That represented a 6 per cent discrepancy based on the
author’s calculated value. For Ro = 2 in., tr = 0.2 in.,
r = 80 per cent equation (68) yielded
p = 0.339
Again from Fig. 3 the calculated value was
= 0-225
For that larger reduction the discrepancy had increased to
51 per cent based on the author’s calculations.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
881
That indicated that for reductions greater than about
20 per cent the discrepancy between the results could not
be disregarded. It was felt that even greater discrepancies
might be found in the case where there was front tension
but no back tension. Since the principle of equilibrium
using the author’s model for the stress distribution did not
agree with the power balance approach for large reduc-
tions, considerable doubt was cast on all results presented
in his paper for large reductions.
It was felt that that discrepancy was due primarily to
neglecting the effect of surface friction on the stress distri-
bution in the contact arc. Before the results presented by
the author could be accepted, the model used in the analysis
should give closer agreement between the power balance
and strip-equilibrium principles than it currently did.
Professor P. W. Whitton, B.Sc. (Eng.), Ph.D.
(Associate Member), wrote that he had a few general com-
ments on the use which the author had made of the experi-
mental work of Ford and himself (2)(3), and also a few
queries relating to the analysis and comparisons presented.
Ford and himself (3) had pointed out in 1953 that, due to
the continuous nature of the practical friction determination
tests, it had been difficult to ensure that the strip thickness
readings corresponded exactly with the roll force, torque
and back tension, etc. For that reason ‘steady state’ experi-
ments had been run to check the p values carefully. In
addition their fiction values, used by the author, had been
examined by other workers in Japan* in 1957, who had
reported very close agreement. In the paper the dis-
crepancies between the p = T/PR method and that of the
author, as listed in column 11 of Table 1, should be read
with that independent verification in mind. The ‘Avitzur’
equations gave values which, with very few exceptions, were
high compared with the observed values. On the evidence
thus available it was very much more reasonable to suppose
that the discrepancies were due to assumptions of the
theory, albeit the overall agreement seemed particularly
good.
The procedure proposed by the author to achieve a p
calculation was, of course, well known; it was the
method of calculation that was Merent. The main dis-
advantage of the determination of maximum ‘bite’ was
simply the difficulty of determining the point at which
skidding commenced in a repeatable way and variations in
that must reflect upon the choice of curve to be taken from
the author’s figures for maximum reduction. That was
particularly important for gauges below 0.020 in. Bearing
in mind too, the advanced stage of knowledge in cold rolling
and the intensive research in the subject over the last
20 years, the assumptions made in the energy approach
undoubtedly masked demonstration of true effects and did
not, indeed, lead to a simpler solution. For example, the
rigid-roll assumption led to the conclusion of the author
that larger reductions were possible for thinner strips-in
* YAMANOUCHI,
H. and MATSUURA, Y. 1957 Rep. Castings
Research Lab., Waseda University, Tokyo, vol. 8, p . 57,
‘Measuringthe Coefficient of Friction in Cold Strip Rollmg’.
VOI 174 NO 32 1960
882 COMMUNICATIONS

general true but not universally so-with hard strip larger It could be said, without any hesitation, that the paper
reductions were possible by reducing thicker strip, a result was particularly opportune because the study of friction
of roll deformation and its effect on load. Similarly the in rolling was receiving close attention generally throughout
u +a. research organizations and also for forming ‘new metals’
assumption Of OO was likely to be wide Of the whae it played an important role in determining roll wear,
2
mark for first passes. deformation possible, limiting thickness, etc.

Proc Instn Mech Engrs b’d 174 Nb 32 1960

Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 Author’s Reply
Dr. B. Avitzur wrote, in reply to the communications, that
it would be convenient to start the discussion by referring
to the nice observation made by Mr. Guy, and presented in
his Fig. 9. To explain that phenomenon, Fig. 12 was added.
012
0.1 I
0.10
0.09
000
-
-.oo7
c- I
%<0 0 6
0.05
004
003
002
00 I
’@ I0 20 30 40 50 60
REDUCTION, r-per ceni
70 80
Fig. 12. Ideal power of deformation
The ideal power of deformation (last of equations (1)) was
proportional to the expression tf In tiltf, Consider initial
thickness ti = 0.3 in. with continuously increasing reduc-
tions. That expression reached a maximum at about 65 per
cent reduction. The drop in power requirements for higher
reductions was due to the drop in the rolled volume. From
zero reduction up to a point A at about r = 47 per cent the
friction was sufficient to supply the increasing energy de-
mand. At about r = 47 per cent, with p = 0.075, and roll
radius of Ro = 5 in. the neutral point would get to the exit.
If higher reductions were attempted, skidding would start.
That study was concerned with the skidding phenomenon,
as explained in the paper on p. 866 and noted by Mr. Guy.
With temporary help of back push, or otherwise, reduc-
tions of r > 86 per cent (point B) could be maintained.
When that was achieved the temporary aid could be
released while the rolling was continuing. The larger of the
two bites suggestedtherefore real possibilities, not imaginary
ones. The upper branch of the curves in Fig. 9 could be
called ‘minimum required reduction’. From Fig. 9 it could
be concluded that to the left of the curve no skidding was
expected while conditions to the right prohibited rolling
because of skidding. Below ti M 0.25 in. (when Ro = 5 in.;
p = 0.075) no danger of skidding existed for any reduction.
That, however, did not mean that any reduction could be
obtained. Other limiting factors, except skidding, were the
Proc Insrn Mcch Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
phenomena called ‘limiting reduction’ and ‘limiting thick-
ness’ (8) ( 9 ) caused by roll flattening. Those phenomena
had been of no concern of the paper.
He wished to thank Dr. Alexander for his contri-
bution in the communication to the understanding of the
limiting thickness and its importance. Following Dr.
Alexander’s suggestion and his equation (63) for the same
material as followed in his example, except that Ro = 5 in.;
p = 0.075, hmin w 0-006 in. was obtained.
It was obvious that even if skidding would not occur, tf
should never approach hmin.
If 85 per cent reduction was taken from, say, ti = 0.1,
tf = 0.015 in. > hmin was obtained. When equation (7)
was utilized to compute the minimum coefficient of friction
with which skidding would be prevented, it was found that
pmin= 0.0445, which was considerably lower than 0.075.
The excess of friction caused excess friction losses and heat,
90 100
while insufficient friction caused skidding.
In Fig. 10 it was indicated again that higher reductions
might have been obtained with smaller coefficients of
friction. In practice, that range was not utilized; neverthe-
less, it was of interest to note its existence. That might
explain the results shown in Table 5 by Professor van
Rooyen.
Dr. Alexander, fi.Guy, and Professor Whitton had
pointed out that the conclusions about the steps to be taken
when skidding was a problem were contrary to the steps to
be taken when limiting thickness and reduction were of
concern. Fortunately those two problems usually did not
exist simultaneously.
Professor van Rooyen suggested that the energy of rolling
was the sum of the three quantities; ideal work of deforma-
tion, redundant work of deformation, and friction losses.
The amount of redundant work could only be speculated,
because it was not computed. It was the author’s opinion
that it should not be added. The argument was as follows:
The ideal work of deformation and the friction losses were
computed for the assumed pattern of deformation. The
friction caused the strain to deviate from the assumed
pattern. The distorted pattern was such as to minimize
friction losses, while the added redundant work was less
than the savings in friction losses. Rigorous answer, whether
to add redundant work or not, might be obtained when
limit analysis would be expanded to include friction
effects*.
* DRUCKER, D. C . 19543. appl. Mech., vol. 21, p. 71, ‘Coulomb
Friction, Plasticity and Limit Load’.
Vol 174 No 32 1960
884
Repeated mention (Dr. Alexander, Mr. Guy, Dr. Wein-
stein and Dr. Zorowski) had been made that roll flattening
and the friction hill should be taken into account. Solutions
by the equilibrium approach were very sensitive to stress
distribution and roll flattening. That was not the case when
the energy approach was utilized. Of the energies computed,
the ideal power of deformation, and the front and back pull
powers were entirely independent of the assumed stress
distribution. The errors, introduced by the assumed stress
distribution, in roll and frictional energies were partially
compensated by each other. The frictional losses were
computed by multiplying the velocity difference bet ween
the roll and the strip by friction stress. The error in the
distribution of the friction force was proportional to the
error in the stress distribution. At the exit no error in
friction losses was introduced because the assumed stress
was in agreement with the friction hill solution. Friction
losses in the vicinity of the entrance accounted for most of
the friction losses. At the neutral point, both the difference
in velocities and the friction losses were zero, so that no
error was introduced there. In between, the amount of
error was limited as long as the pressure was reasonable.
The quantities which made the power balance were there-
fore not too sensitive to roll flattening. That was not to say
that attempts to account for flattening and obtain better
accuracy should not be made. Furthermore, another smooth
stress distribution might be chosen, not that of equation (44),
for better agreement with the experimental data. It was
only to be said that sufficiently good results had been
obtained with the assumed stress distribution.
Dr. Weinstein and Dr. Zorowski had checked if equili-
brium was maintained with his assumed stress distribution
and had found increasing error as the reduction increased.
Attempts to find criteria for skidding through the equili-
brium approach failed. Either because the expression for the
stress distribution was too complicated, or far-fetched from
reality.
The stress distribution assumed in equation (44) was not
intended to replace the right stress distribution. However,
Proc lnstn Mech Engrs
Downloaded from pme.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
AUTHOR’S REPLY
when that simplified approximated stress discribmion was
coupled with the energy approach, the introduced error in
the power balance was small.
The example of R, = 2 in., tf = 0.2 in. and r = 80 per
cent, given by Dr. Weinstein and Dr. Zommki, would
imply a2 = 0.635 radian. That was a big angle of contact
and violated assumption No. 7 on p. 866. The error arose
because Fig. 3 in the advance publication was incorrect.
The analysis with strain hardening effecr assumed linear
strain hardening. In the annealed state (first pass) the strain
hardening was not linear. Furthermore, it was very doubt-
ful which value to pick for yield at zem reduction. There-
fore, equation (6a) should not be applied to the first pass.
That had been the source of discrepancies pointed out by
Mr. Guy and shown in his Table 4. That was the reason
why Table 2 did not include first passes.
The discrepancy between the experimental coefficient
of friction and that computed by equation (9) for the first
pass was not higher than that for the other passes. There-
fore, equations (9) and (6b) were recommended, even for
first passes, with yield value as that at half the reduction.
Professor van Rooyen and Dr. Weinstein and Dr. Zorow-
ski had correctly pointed out that the accuracy of the
approach improved as the reductions and coefficient of
friction reduced.
He wished to thank Dr. Bentwich for his derivation of
the arc length S and the velocity, in a more consistent
approach to the approximations.
The solution for maximum possible reduction before
skidding, as presented in that work, covered a problem
which had not been answered previously. Its limitations
had been pointed out by several writers in the communi-
cations. Also, the general agreement with Professor
Whitton’s data, and the consistent higher values of the com-
puted coefficients of fiiction suggested that bettering of the
results was both desired and possible. In conclusion, the
possibilities of the energy approach, in solving many of the
rolling problems had been demonstrated. Therefore, that
approach should be explored, not ignored,
Vol I74 No 32 1960