See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242727233

Modelling and control of a hot rolling mill

Article  in  Latin American applied research Pesquisa aplicada latino americana = Investigación aplicada latinoamericana · July 2006

CITATIONS READS

9 5,664

2 authors, including:

Francisco G. Rossomando
National University of San Juan
40 PUBLICATIONS   394 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Discrete Time Neuro Adaptive Sliding Mode Control View project

Irrigation presicion View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Francisco G. Rossomando on 17 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Latin American Applied Research 36:199-204 (2006)

MODELLING AND CONTROL OF A HOT ROLLING MILL

F. G. ROSSOMANDO† and J. DENTI FILHO‡

†Coordenadoria da Mecânica, CEFETES, CEP 29040-780 - Vitória-ES-Brasil

‡Laboratório de Controle e Instrumentação,UFES CT2. CEP 29060-970 - Vitória-ES-Brasil
† frosoma@cefetes.br ‡ j.denti@ele.ufes.br

Abstract − In this paper, a real application of opti-

mal control of a hot rolling mill is presented. It is used
the state space model formulation in the minimization
of the strip thickness variations. It is presented the
simulation results of the control model, which is com-
pared with industrial real data from process controled
by traditional techniques. The results of the simula-
tions lead to a less output thickness variations com-
pared with the real industrial data.
Keywords− optimal control, modelling, hot rolling
Fig. 1: Rolling mill stands escheme
mill.
I. INTRODUCTION The main motivation of this work is the reduction of
In this work, a thickness output control for a strip roll- the output thickness variations of any of two input proc-
ing mill process is proposed. The proposed scheme has ess variables disturbance: strip temperature and input
the knowledge that permits the application of optimal strip thickness. Fig. 2 shows three graphics of real roll-
control techniques. ing mill process. In Fig. 2 (a) we observe the rolling
It was developed a versatile environment for simula- force and the cold zones indicated by arrows, that are
tions that was used in the analysis the behaviour of a due to skid marks at the furnaces. In Fig. 2 (b) we can
rolling stand. The results was used for validation com- see the temperatures and in Fig. 2 (c) the consequent
pared with real rolling stand data . exit thickness.
The simulation is an important tool for simplified These cold zones have greater deformation resis-
dynamic analysis of a rolling mill Stand, allowing easier tance and increases the rolling mill force in the stand.
the controllers validation. This variations in the rolling mill force produce varia-
In this introduction the control problem is described. tions in the stand stretching, leading to variations in the
The following topics present the conventional control, output strip thickness at the stand.
the optimal control structure, the optimal control struc- Observing the output temperature of the rolling mill
ture with the integral action proposed and results of the stand, it can be seen low temperature zones that are the
proposed controller compared to real data. skid marks previously mentioned. On the other hand,
The rolling mill process consists of introducing a from the beginning to the end of the process a decreas-
strip inside two rotating rolls causing a permanent de- ing temperature is observed. This thermal lose produces
formation in this strip, it is called thickness reduction. a proportional increasing in the rolling force and in the
The stands, and rotary rolls, are the machines that make output strip thickness as presented in Fig. 2 (c), being
the rolling mill process. A Tandem Rolling Mill is a set the temperature variations and the input thickness the
of rolling mill stands. Figure 1 shows a scheme of two mainly responsables of the variations in the rolling force
simple rolling mill stands with four rolls each one and altering the output strip thickness .
with thickness adjustment systems by screws position-
ers. The rolls in contact with the strip are the work rolls.
The rolling mill stands are constituted by four rolls, two
work rolls and two of back-up. In this paper the rolling
mill physical phenomena is done by the work rolls The
strip plate from the previous processes (flat product or a
coil), is introduced in the gap of the work rolls, which is
smaller than the thickness of the strip. This gap is de-
termined by set point of the screws that positions the
rolls.
These rolls drag the strip to the Stand roll bite, re-
ducing its thickness. This strip has to leave the actual
stand and enter in the next until the desired thickness is
reached and is coiled in the output of the last Stand.
Fig. 2: Strip cold points.

199
Latin American Applied Research
II. CONVENTIONAL CONTROL - FORCE FEED
FORDWARD (FFF)
The force feed-forward (FFF) thickness control tech-
nique is based in the detection of hardness fluctuations
in the material as it passes through the first finishing
stand, and the data sent from the setup model
Keeping the gap constant at that stand, differences in
hardness are reflected as roll force variations. Therefore,
if material flows is continuously monitored, it is possi-
ble to adjust the gap of the next stands prior to the arri-
val of the disturbance.
Calculations are made every 0.1 sec. by dividing the
strip in slices. For every slice reaching the first stand,
the roll separating force is read. The exit thickness that
the strip should have leaving each stand, is calculated
for the current hardness and the thermal evolution along
the tandem mill.
Exit thickness is calculated in such a way that keep
constant roll force at the last two stands, in order to
avoid affecting strip shape. Since the temperature of the
material at the last stands is known the entry thickness
to them are evaluated in a way that thinner thickness
correspond to colder slices and vice-versa.
Thickness in the intermediate stands are computed to
maintain load distribution defined by the setup model.
Once thickness and temperature at each stand have been
determined, roll force can be calculated.
For every slice is calculated the same set of data and
stored in the control computer memory buffers. The
tracking of the slices as they flow through the stands
allows the system to know their current location. Gap
and a roll speed adjustments are defined for the slice
that is to reach any given stand at the time that equals
mill drivers response time.
Deviations measured at the thickness gage are used
to make a fast correction at the last stand and calculation
adjustments are done in order to keep the previous load
distribution.
The FFF scheme is shown in Fig. 3.
III. PROPOSED CONTROL
In order to develop the control law in the last two
Stands we applied optimal control techniques with inte-
gral action on the model represented in state space for-
mulation. Fig. 4 shows the proposed control scheme.
Fig. 3: Force Feed Forward Control
200
36:199-204 (2006)
Fig. 4: Proposed Optimal control in the last two stands.
For the considered system our control inputs are
Δgin(1) , ΔVin(1) , Δgin(2) , the controlled outputs are Δh2(1),
Δσ1, Δh2(2), and the measured outputs are Δh2(1), Δσ1,
Δh2(2), ΔP(1) y ΔP(2). The main control objective is to
maintain the strip output thickness variation (Δh2) closer
to zero, for any temperature or strip input thickness
variation in the system.
All input variable deviation is considered a distur-
bance and the control system should maintain the thick-
ness variation closer to zero acting on gap variation
(Δgin), which is our control variable of the output thick-
ness variation (Δh2).
Similar actions are taken for tension variations
which depends on the amount of strip accumulated be-
tween the last two Stands F9 and F10. This tension is a
function of the difference between the strip output and
input speeds on the Stands F9 and F10 respectively. In
our case this tension is controlled by the rolls tip speed
variation of the Stand F9.
In this case, in literature one can find successful ap-
plications of linear MIMO-(multi-input multi-output)
controllers to multi-stand rolling mills, which, in fact,
overcome the deficiencies of the classical single-loop
control concepts ,see, e.g., Grimble and Hearns (1998)
and Hoshino et al. (1988).
A. Analytical Process Modeling
In this work we presented a mathematical model for the
last Stands F9 and F10 of the tandem rolling mill, to
evaluate the proposed control technique. (FFF system
makes the thickness adjustment in the last two Stands),
the analytical model used is for the validation, by simu-
lation, of the results obtained.
Those results are compared with real values meas-
ured in the rolling mill stands controlled by the FFF
technique. (Bryant, 1973; Ginzburg , 1989).
To obtain an approximated rolling model, we
worked with Orowan and Alexander theories (Orowan,
1944; Alexander, 1972), which appears more reliable to
obtain the rolling mill force, being able to be used in a
wide set of conditions of strip rolling. The mathematical
model was fit and calibrated with values measured in
real process, getting a closer response to the real force
value, this model is represented in a general form by Eq.
(4) and the sliding by Eq. (5).
 F. G. ROSSOMANDO, J. DENTI FILHO

B. Basic model equations variation:

The implemented mathematical model considers the last ΔP (1) = β1.Δσ 1 + β 2 .Δh2(1) + β 3 .Δh1(1) + β 4 .ΔT (1)
(6)
two rolling stands, since FFF control makes the thick- ΔP (2) = β 5 .Δσ 1 + β 6 .Δh2(2) + β 7 .Δh1(2) + β 8 .ΔT (2)
ness adjustment in the preceeding ones. In our case we The coefficients of the linear functions are:
make the thickness adjustment by optimal control tech- ∂P (1) ∂P (1) ∂P (1) ∂P (1)
nique, using the mathematical model expressed in the β1 = ; β 2 = (1) ; β 3 = (1) ; β 4 = (1)
∂σ 1 ∂h2 ∂h1 ∂T
state space form. The output thickness of each Stand is a (7)
function of the rolls gap and the stand streching ∂P (2) ∂P (2) ∂P (2) ∂P (2)
β5 = ; β 6 = (2) ; β 7 = (2) ; β 8 = (2)
P(i ) , ∂σ 1 ∂h2 ∂h1 ∂T
h2(i ) = g (i ) + (1)
K (i ) iv) The sliding variation is a function of the input and
where: the output thickness, and the strip tension which is
represented by equations (8) and (9).:
( i ) : Rolling mill stand i=1 (F9), i=2 (F10).
Δf (1) = α1.Δσ 1 + α 2 .Δh2(1) + α 3 .Δh1(1)
h2(i ) : Output strip thickness of the stand (i). (8)
Δf (2) = α 4 .Δσ 1 + α 5 .Δh2(2) + α 6 .Δh1(2)
g (i ) : Rolls gap of the stand (i) The coefficients are:
P (i ) : Roling mill force of the stand (i). ∂f (1) ∂f (1) ∂f (1)
α1 = ;α 2 = (1) ;α 3 = (1)
K (i ) : Elasticity Modulus of the Stand (i). ∂σ 1 ∂h2 ∂h1
The derived strip tension between the Stands is a (9)
∂f (2)
∂f (2)
∂f (2)
function of the difference between the strip output and α4 = ;α 5 = (2) ;α 6 = (2)
input speed on Stands F9 and F10: ∂σ 1 ∂h2 ∂h1
dσ 1 E (1) v) The strip output speed variation is expressed by the
= (V2 − V1(2) ) , (2) sliding variation coefficients and by the roll tip
dt L
speed:
where:
ΔV2(1) = (1 + f *(1) ) .ΔV (1) + V *(1) .Δf (1)
σ 1 : Strip tension between stands F9 and F10.
(10)
E : Strip Young modulus 21.000 N/m ΔV2(2) = (1 + f *(2) ) .ΔV (2) + V *(2) .Δf (2)
L : distance between Stands (i). 5.486 m. vi) The controlled variables are not affected directly by
V2(1) : output strip velocity of the Stand F9. the tip speed of the last stand. Then we have ΔV2=0.
V1(2) : input strip velocity of the Stand F10. vii) Each actuator has its own dynamic that can be ap-
proximated by a first order system expressed as:
The volume continuity of the strip in the rolls gap is
defined as dg ( i )
Tg = g in(i ) − g (i ) (11)
V1(i ) h1(i ) = V2(i ) .h2(i ) . (3) dt
The rolling mill force is resented by Eq. (4). dV ( i )
Tv = Vin(i ) − V (i ) (12)
P (i ) = P ( h1(i ) , h2(i ) , σ 1(i ) , σ 2(i ) , S (i ) , μ (i ) , T (i ) ) , (4) dt
viii) The variables Δh1(1) ΔT(1) and ΔT(2) will be con-
where: sidered as system disturbances;
σ 2 (i ) : output strip tension on the Stand (i) ix) Considering the transport delay between F9 and F10,
g (i ) : rolls gap for the Stand (i). the output strip thickness variation on the Stand F9
μ (i ) : friction Coeficient on the Stand (i). is equal to the input strip thickness variation on the
Stand F10. The delay time is equal to Td=L/(V+ΔV)
S ( i ) : Yield stress on the Stand (i). then Δh2(1)=Δh1(2).exp(-s.Td). where s is the Laplace
Sliping function is defined like: operator.
f (i ) = f ( h1(i ) , h2(i ) , σ 1(i ) ) . (5) The general model structure represented in the state
space is shown in equation (13)
C. Model basic considerations ⎧x = A.x + B.u + E1 .e
i) The main consideration is that the control is applied ⎪
when a strip exists between both stands, this means, ⎨ y = C.x + E 2 .e , (13)
⎪ w = F.x + E .e
that the previous moment to the entrance of the strip ⎩ 3
in the last stand is not considered. where the input, states, output and disturbance vectors
ii) We considered the finite variations of the nominal are:
values. For example variable x, being Δx the finite ⎛ Δh2 ⎞
(1) ⎛ Δh1 ⎞ (1)
⎛ Δσ1 ⎞ ⎛ Δgin(1) ⎞
variation and x* the nominal value. ⎜ (1) ⎟ ; ⎜ ⎟; ⎜ (1) ⎟ ; ⎜ ⎟; ⎛ ΔP (1) ⎞ .
Δg y = ⎜ Δσ 1 ⎟ e = ⎜ Δ T ⎟ u = ⎜ ΔVin(1) ⎟ w = ⎜ (2) ⎟
iii) We have also considered that the rolling force is a ⎜ ⎟
x=
⎜ ΔV (1) ⎟ ⎜ Δh (2) ⎟ ⎜ Δh1(1) ⎟ ⎜ Δgin(2) ⎟ ⎝ ΔP ⎠
function of the input thickness, output thickness, ⎜⎜ (2) ⎟⎟ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎜⎜ (2) ⎟⎟ ⎝ ⎠
strip temperature and strip tension between Stands ⎝ Δg ⎠ ⎝ ΔT ⎠
(Pedersen, 1995; Denti, 1994; Hoshino et al., 1988). The coefficients needed to generate the state space
The sensitivity curves show the rolling mill force matrixes are:

201
Latin American Applied Research 36:199-204 (2006)

⎛ K (1) ⎞ ⎛ β1 ⎞ ⎛ β3 ⎞ ⎛ β4 ⎞ finite time interval, we define matrix Mo as:

ε1 = ⎜ ⎟ ; ε 2 = ⎜ (1) ⎟ ; ε 3 = ⎜ (1) ⎟ ; ε 4 = ⎜ (1) ⎟
⎝ K −
(1)
β 2 ⎠ ⎝ K − β 2 ⎠ ⎝ K − β 2 ⎠ ⎝ K − β2 ⎠ M o = ⎡⎣C´ C´.A´ C´A´ 2 C´A´3 ⎤⎦ . (16)
T

⎛ K (2) ⎞ ⎛ β5 ⎞ ⎛ β7 ⎞ ⎛ β8 ⎞
ε 5 = ⎜ (2) ⎟ ; ε 6 = ⎜ (2) ⎟ ; ε 7 = ⎜ (2) ⎟ ; ε 8 = ⎜ (2) ⎟ Where Mo matrix rank is equal to the process order, that
⎝ K − β6 ⎠ ⎝ K − β6 ⎠ ⎝ K − β6 ⎠ ⎝ K − β6 ⎠ confirm it is completely observable.
⎪⎧ E ⎛ h*(2) ⎞⎪⎫ For the controller design we look for a state transi-
Tσ = −1 ⎨ .⎜V *(1) .(α1 +α2.ε2 ) −V *(2) .(α4 +α5.ε6 ) . 2*(2) ⎟⎬ ; tion matrix to obtain the best possible process response
⎩⎪ L ⎝ h1 ⎠⎭⎪
with addition of an integral action to reduce the process
E
(
M `0 = . (1 + f *(2) ) .Tσ ; M 1 = − . V .α 2 .ε1 .Tσ ;
E *(1)
) stationary state error.
L L The inclusion of the integral action increases the
⎛E h*(2) ⎞ system order, if the system is of 4th order and the num-
M 2 = − ⎜ .V *(2) .α 5 .ε 5 . 2*(2) ⎟ .Tσ
⎝L h1 ⎠ ber of feedback variables with integral action is 3 then,
the new system order is 7 (4+3) and the new state vector
E ⎧ *(1) ⎫
M3 = . ⎨V . (α 2 .ε 3 + α 3 ) ⎬ .Tσ ; for the calculus of the optimal integral regulator will
L ⎩ ⎭ have a dimension equal to 7 (4+3).
E ⎛ *(1) ⎞ To this new extended order, the considered model is
M4 = . ⎜ V .α 2 .ε 4 ⎟ .Tσ still observable and controllable. The new state vector
L ⎝ ⎠
can be defined as ξ ( k ) = [ x( k ) v (k )] , being vector v(k )
T

E ⎛ h*(2) ⎞
M 5 = − . ⎜ V *(2) . (α 5.ε 7 + α 6 ) 2*(2) ⎟ .Tσ ; the integral action for the three feedback variables.
L ⎝ h1 ⎠ The new matrixes A and B are
E ⎛ *(2) h*(2) ⎞ ~ ⎛ A 4x4 0 4x3 ⎞ ; ~ ⎛ B 4x3 ⎞
M6 = − . ⎜ V . (α 2 .ε 4 ) . 2*(2) ⎟ .Tσ A = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ B = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
L ⎝ h1 ⎠ ⎝ − C.A 3x4 I 3x3 ⎠ ⎝ − C.B 3x3 ⎠
The matrixes A,B,C,F,E1,E2 and E3 are: The performance index proposed for integral optimal
controller is:
⎛ −1/ Tσ M 0 / Tσ M 1 / Tσ M 2 / Tσ ⎞

A=⎜
⎜
0 −1/ Tg(1) 0 0 ⎟
⎟ 1 ∞
[ ~ ~
]
J = .∑ ξ T ( k ).Q.ξ (k ) + uT ( k ).R.u (k ) (17)
2 k =0
⎜ 0 0 −1/ Tv 0 ⎟
⎜ ⎟ The two matrixes R and Q are symmetrical positive
⎜ 0 0 0 −1/ Tg(2) ⎟⎠
⎝ definite and our objective is to find the optimal value for
⎛ 0 0 0 ⎞
⎛ ε 2 ε1 0 0 ⎞ the index J. The plant structure is the established in the
⎜ ⎟; state space, and the calculation of the controller gain
⎟ C=⎜ 1 0 0 0⎟
(1)
1/ T 0 0
B=⎜ ~
g
⎜ 0 ⎜ ⎟ matrix K must be done offline, by the Riccati equation.
1/ Tv 0 ⎟ ⎜ε
⎜⎜ (2) ⎟ ⎝ 0 0 ε 5 ⎟⎠ The Riccati equation , for the stationary state is:
1/ Tg ⎟⎠
6
⎝ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
P = Q + A'T .P.A '− A 'T .P.B'.
⎛β β 2 .ε 2 0 0 ⎞ (18)
F=⎜ 1
⎝ β5 0
⎟
0 β 6 .ε 5 ⎠ [
~ ~ ~ ~ −1 ~ ~ ~
]
R + B'T .P.B' .B'T .P.A '
~
From the value of P the gain matrix K is.
⎛ ε3 ε4 0 0⎞
⎛ M 3 / Tσ
⎜
0
M 4 / Tσ
0
M 5 / Tσ
0
M 6 / Tσ ⎞
⎟; ⎜
0 ⎟ E2 = 0 0 0 0⎟
⎟ [
~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ −1 ~ T ~ ~
]
K = R + B' .P.B' .B' .P.A ' (19)
E1 = ⎜ ⎜ With the gain calculated in the Eq. (19), being
⎜ 0 0 0 0 ⎟ ⎜0 0 ε7 ε8 ⎟⎠
⎝ ~
⎜⎜ 0 0 0 0 ⎟⎠
⎟ K = [K − K i ] then the control law is:
⎝
⎛β β4 0 0⎞ u ( k ) = −K.x( k ) + K i .v ( k )
(20)
E3 = ⎜ 3
⎝ 0 0 β7 β 8 ⎟⎠ The optimal control block diagram is shown in Fig.
The previous model is converted to discrete time 5, where it is assumed that all the states are available.
state space with sample time of to=0.1 seg. The eigenvalues of Eq (21) must be inside of unit circle.
With the state feedback the system is autonomous,
⎧x ( k + 1) = A′.x ( k ) + B′.u ( k ) + E1 .e ( k ) where the system dynamic is governed by the eigenval-
⎪
⎨ y ( k ) = C′.x ( k ) + E 2 .e ( k ) (14) ues matrix as it is shown in Eq (21):
⎪ w ( k ) = F.x ( k ) + E 3 .e ( k )  '+ B ' .K
⎤
⎩ det ⎡⎣ z.I − A ⎦ (21)
To demonstrate that the process is totally controllable The eigenvalues of the system with the optimal con-
we construct the controllability matrix Mc (Kuo, 1992; troller or with the optimal controller with integral action
Ogata, 1996; Grimble et al., 1998; Kuchen et al., 2000). lies inside the unit circle.
M c = ⎡⎣B´ A´.B´ A´ 2 .B´ A´ 3 .B´ ⎤⎦ . (15) Where the reference vector is r(k)=[0,0,0]T. The Ta-
We obtained that the matrix rank Mc is equal to the ble 1 indicates the model parameters used in this article.
process order demonstrating that it is completely con- D. Control Results Validation
trollable. In order to prove that the system is completely In order to make the control technique evaluation, it was
observable, this is, if the state vector can be determine collected real rolling mill data of the steel coil, with No
from the measurement of the output vector during a

202
 F. G. ROSSOMANDO, J. DENTI FILHO

982 1612 rolled in the SIDERAR S.A. plant in Argen-
tina.
Fig. 6 shows the measured input thickness variation ,
the temperature process variation of the real rolling mill
that are applied to the model to test the proposed control
law. Only variations concerned with the operation point
were introduced. Simulation results show the output
thickness variations (Δh2(1) and Δh2(2)), the strip tension
variations (Δσ1), and the control action for both Stands
(Δg(1) ΔV(1) Δg(2)). The control results for an optimal
controller and for an optimal controller with integral
action are shown in the next figures.
Fig. 7 shows the output thickness variations for
Stands F9 and F10, being the output expected reference
variation equal to zero. The optimal control error is
lower than 30 μm and in the case of conventional con-
trol (FFF) it goes up to 100 μm. The same results for
different data collected in the rolling mill process were
obtained and the thickness error in the case of the opti-
mal control is always smaller than the error of the con-
trol FFF, which is the real controller used in the plant.

Fig. 7: Strip output thickness Variation of Stands F9

Fig. 5: The Optimal model control represented in state and F10 with FFF, optimal control and optimal control
space. with integral action
Table 1: Model parameters
Parameters:
Time constant F9 Tg 4.25 sec.
Time constant F10 Tg 4.25 sec.
Time constant Tv 1.56 sec.
Distance between stands L 5.486 m
Strip’s Young modulus E 21 N/m2
Rolling mill speed F9 V1 4.0 m/sec.
Rolling mill speed F10 V2 5.8 m/sec.
Input strip thickness h1 6.120 mm
Output strip thickness F9 h2 4.650 mm
Output strip thickness F10 h2 3.825 mm
Elastic constant F9 Kel 436 tons/mm
Elastic constant F10 Kel 435 tons/mm
Fig. 8: Gap variation of Stands F9 and F10 respec-
tively.

Fig. 6: Strip thickness and temperature Variation of

Stands F9 and F10. Fig. 9: Strip tension variation and speed control variation of
Stand F9.

203
 Latin American Applied Research 36:199-204 (2006)

Laminadores reversíveis, UFMG (1994).

Fig. 10: Rolling force variation with integral optimal
control for Stands F9 and F10 respectively.
Fig. 8 shows the gap variation in the Stands to com-
pensate model disturbances. Fig. 9 shows the strip ten-
sion calculated by the simulation model, the real strip
tension variation is not well-known and was estimated
based on looper angle.
The last figure (Fig. 10) shows simulation results for
the rolling force for a FFF control and optimal control
It is important to note that the control objective is
the output thickness (Fig. 7). In Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 we
observe the efects in interstands tensions and in the roll-
ing force as a consequence of the control action.
Ginzburg, V. Steel Rolling Technology: Theory and
Practice. Marcel Dekker. New York and Basel
(1989).
Grimble, M.J. and G. Hearns, “LQG Controllers for
State-Space Systems with Pure Transport Delays:
Application to Hot Strip Mills,” Automatica, 34,
1169-1184 (1998).
Hoshino, I., Y. Maekawa, T. Fujimoto, H. Kimura and
H. Kimura, “Observer-based multivariable control of
the aluminium cold tandem mill,” Automatica, 24
,pp 741-758 (1988).
Kuchen, B., R. Carelli, J. Postigo and V. Mut, Control
Digital Avanzado, Reporte interno Instituto de Auto-
matica, UNSJ (2000).
Kuo, B., Automatic Control Systems. Prentice Hall Inc,
fourth edition. (1992).
Ogata, K., Modern Control Engineering. Prentice Hall
Inc, third edition. (1996).
Orowan, E., “The Calculation of Roll Pressure in Hot
and Cold Rolling”; Proc. Inst. Of Mechanical Engi-
neers, 150,140-167 (1944).
Pedersen, L., Modeling and identification of hot rolling
mill. ln proc. of the American Control Conference.
3674-3680 (1995).

IV. CONCLUSIONS
The rolling mill model presented in this article is cali-
brated with real values measured in a real rolling proc-
ess and constructed with parameters provided by Siderar
S.A. company
Later, having the linear model around the operation
point we obtain a state space model representation.
In this way we have a dynamic model for the last two
rolling stands with a behavior too similar to the real
process within the operation range that was considered.
The results shows the thickness variation of the two
control techniques. The optimal control technique of the
process evaluated by computational simulation, show an
smaller thickness variation than the real system force
feed forward FFF, that was take for comparison, FFF
presents a greater thickness dispersion than the optimal
controller.
The technique is simple to implement and could be
used in parallel, for performance verification in real
operation conditions , allowing a possible substitution of
the system force feed forward (FFF) in the future in last
two rolling mill stands.
REFERENCES
Alexander, J.M., “On the Theory of Rolling”; Proc. R.
Soc. London, A. 326, 535-63 (1972).
Bryant, G.F., Automation of Tandem Mills; London, The
Received: March 2, 2006.
Iron and Steel Institute, Publication No. 160, (1973).
Accepted: May 23, 2006.
Denti Filho, J., Um método de Controle Dinâmico de
Recommended by Subject Editor A. Cuitiño.

204

View publication stats