2011 (G. Echave Iriarte) - A New Analytical Model For Cold Rolling of Sheet and Strip

A NEW ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COLD ROLLING OF SHEET
AND STRIP
G. Echave Iriarte
MS Mechanical Engineering, University of Navarra, Spain.

MS Theoretical Physics, University Autonoma of Madrid, Spain.
Email: gechavei@yahoo.es
Received 13 September 2010; accepted 14 January 2011
ABSTRACT
Plastic Flow Theory is applied in this paper to solve the problem of pressure calculation in
cold flat rolling under the assumption that the material behaves like a rigid perfectly plastic
Von Mises continuum. Symmetry considerations lead to the use of bipolar cylindrical
coordinates to solve the incompressible velocity field and the corresponding strain rates. The
Levy-Mises flow rule along with the Von Mises criterion and the momentum equations will
be used to obtain the self-consistent plastic stress field in the roll gap. Being friction the
source of the cold rolling flow, it cannot be considered a posteriori and therefore the friction
model with the rolls has to be used for the computation of the initial uncorrected stresses.
Equations for the calculation of the neutral point and the critical friction coefficient are also
given. Finally, a general model considering the counterbalance between strain hardening and
thermal softening is proposed due to the quasi-adiabatic condition of the cold rolling flow.
Keywords: Plastic Flow Theory, cold flat rolling, self-consistent stress field, stress field
corrector, perturbative strain hardening, natural coordinates.
1 INTRODUCTION
A cold rolling model is a set of mathematical expressions relating the main parameters of the
process that can be used by the mill builders to design new rolling facilities or to the operators
how to better handler the process and they are also the basis for the computer programs used
to control the cold rolling mills.
Based on the Mathematical Theory of Plasticity a new model for cold flat rolling has been
developed relating plastic velocity field, strain rates, flow rule and criterion, plastic stresses
and roll pressure distribution with the plastic properties of the material and the geometry of
the process. This theory is based on some well-established experimental facts like the
constancy of volume upon normal plastic flow and the strain hardening of the material.
Under the incompressibility condition an admissible velocity field and the corresponding
strain rates are established, being the basis for the calculation of the plastic stress field using
the Levy–Mises flow rule and the Von Mises criterion.
Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

2 G. Echave
Due to the high speed involved in the process of cold flat rolling, most metallic materials do
not harden while being rolled due to the counterbalance of strain hardening and thermal
softening and therefore they behave as a rigid perfectly plastic continuum, allowing the
calculation of the stress field ignoring the strain hardening effect. Some of them nevertheless
are very prone to harden and for them we will use a perturbative calculation of the stresses.
Strain hardening could appear also when the rolling rate is largely reduced and therefore the
quasi-adiabatic regime, which leads to thermal softening, is lost in high degree.
To calculate the plastic stress field we will start with the Levy-Mises constitutive equations
and the Von Mises criteria for a rigid perfectly plastic continuum along with the differential
equations of equilibrium to get the stress field in a self-consistent way. The same method will
be applied for the stresses under strain hardening. Because of friction is the source of the cold
rolling flow and not merely a dissipative force, the friction model with the rolls must be used
to get the initial uncorrected plastic stress field in the roll gap.
Any theory of cold rolling applicable to sheet and strip must give a reasonable explanation to
the following experimental facts:
• The friction hill in the pressure distribution between the rolls and the material by Siebel
and Lueg (Siebel E and Lueg W 1933).
• The relation between the load on the rolls and the external friction by Pomp and Lueg
(Pomp A and Lueg W 1935).
• The relation between the rolling load and the roll diameter by Pomp and Lueg.
• The relation between the rolling load and the initial thickness of the strip by Rudback and
Severdenko (Rudbakh V and Severdenko V 1936).
• The decrease of the rolling load with the application of backward and forward tensions by
Hayes and Burus (Hayes A and Burus RS 1937).
Most theories of cold flat rolling make the following simplifying assumptions:
• The plane vertical sections during rolling remain plane during rolling.
• The material under rolling is supposed to be incompressible and the Von Mises criterion
for the onset of plastic flow is considered.
• Slipping friction is supposed to occur always between the material and the rolls and
therefore there is a point at which both have the same velocity (neutral point).
• The friction coefficient is supposed to be constant along the arc of contact with the rolls.
• The material is homogeneous and isotropic and the yield stress is constant throughout.
• The elastic deformation of the rolls is irrelevant or being the process stationary, we can
use the radius of the deformed rolls as calculated by Hitchcock equation and others.

A New Analytical Model for Cold Rolling of Sheet and Strip 3
2 PREVIOUS ANALYTICAL MODELS IN COLD FLAT ROLLING
A number of mathematical models have been developed during the last century to solve the
cold flat rolling problem under some of the assumptions above. The model by Von Karman
(Von Karman Th 1925) expresses the pressure distribution along the arc of contact at the roll
strip interface in the form of a differential equation assuming a rigid perfectly plastic Von
Mises material. Under all the assumptions above, he obtained the following equation:
1 dp dy
y ∓μp =k (1)
2 dx dx
p Pressure distribution along the arc of contact.

R Radius of the deformed arc of contact.
h Thickness of the strip after rolling.
μ Friction coefficient.
x Coordinate of the section from the exit plane.
y Height of the section in x .
k Yield stress in shear.
Supposing the arc of contact is circular, according to Hitchcock equation, and the radius of
the rolls is much greater than the thickness of the strip we can use the approximation for small
angles of contact and therefore we have:
1⎛ x 2 ⎞ dp x
⎜ h + ⎟ = 2k ± μ p (2)
2⎝ R ⎠ dx R
We must solve this non-linear differential equation along with Hitchcock formula (Hitchcock
JM 1930) to get the roll pressure distribution along with the radius of the deformed arc of
contact.
Approximate methods have been devised to solve (2) by Trinks (Trinks W 1937), Nadai
(Nadai A 1939), Bland and Ford (Bland DR and Ford H 1948) and Tselikov (Tselikov AI
1939).
The model predicts a peak of pressure at the neutral point and is in good agreement with
experimental data, explaining most of the facts appointed in the introduction. Nevertheless the
experimental pressure distribution obtained using probes in the rolls is more rounded at the
entry and exit points and at the peak of pressure. Small discrepancies appear also in the
calculation of the roll force and torque (Hill R 1950).
A more refined theory by Orowan (Orowan E 1943) abandons the assumptions of the plane
sections and slipping friction. The starting point of his theory is the solution by Prandt (Prandt
L 1923) for the stress field of a compressed mass of plastic material between two rough
parallel flat plates. He also assumes three regions for the contact between the rolls and the
material, the slipping backward region, the slipping forward region and the sticking or static
region. In the slipping regions, the coulombian friction model is assumed. When the friction
force overcomes the yield stress in shear of the rolled stock, friction becomes static.

4 G. Echave
The theory by Orowan gives better agreement with experimental data, however it cannot give
a solution to the rounding at the peak of the friction hill and to the possible existence of
negative pressure regions along the middle plane of the strip. Orowan theory does not give
any information on the plastic flow of the material between the rolls.
The approach of this paper is to assume a Natural System of Coordinates, close - related to the
symmetries of the problem, to get a minimum incompressible velocity field and the
corresponding strain rates. Once the kinematics of the flow has been established, the Von
Mises criterion, the Levy-Mises flow rule and the momentum equations will be used to get the
self-consistent plastic stress field. The Coulomb friction condition with the rolls will allow the
computation of the zero order stresses and in this way to conciliate the kinematics of the flow
with the plastic stress field.
3 GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The main equations to use in cold flat rolling calculations appear in previous papers on cold
impact extrusion (Echave G 2010).
The Levy-Mises flow rule.
1
Dij =
2
{ }
vi , j + v j ,i = λ sij λ >0 (3)
The Von Mises criterion for the onset of plastic flow ( J 2 plasticity).
1 σ C2
sij sij = (4)
2 3
The equation for the total power in the continuum.
2
∫∂V ti vi dS = Dij Dij dV + ∑ ∫ + σ 12 j Δv(1,2) j dS j
3 dyn ∫V
C σY (5)
Σj
j
The first law of thermodynamics in adiabatic regime.
(T − Ti ) 2
Cdynσ Y ∫ Dij Dij dV + ∑ ∫ σ 12 j Δv(1,2) j dS j
∫V ρudV ≅ mcV
f
= Pfric + (6)
tL 3 V j Σ+
j
Cold flat rolling can be considered quasi-adiabatic in the roll gap when the rolling rate is high
enough and therefore in this case the rigid perfectly plastic model works. Nevertheless,
equation (6) will be of no practical use due to the continuous nature of the process.
In the following sections, we will see how to apply these equations to cold rolling of sheet and
strip to get a complete analytical solution to the problem in agreement with the experimental
facts appointed in the introduction.

4 COLD FLAT ROLLING
4.1 Definition of the Problem and Coordinates
Cold flat rolling (Figure 1) is the process of plastic flow in which a sheet of metal, below its
recrystallization temperature, is deformed passing through two opposite driving rolls to
reduce its thickness. The term cold flat rolling applies to sheets of initial thickness up to eight
millimetres approximately and in which the radius of the rolls is at least one hundred times
the final thickness of the strip. Because of the width of the rolled stock is larger than the
initial thickness the lateral spread (less than two percent) can be ignored. In these conditions,
the problem reduces to one of plane strain except in narrow zones near the edges of the strip.
Due to the high pressures involved in the process of cold flat rolling, the rolls are elastically
deformed, and their increase in radius must be taken into account for an accurate calculation
of the roll pressure profile. In what follows, we will assume that the radius of the rolls is the
deformed radius calculated with equations like the one by Hitchcock (Hitchcock JM 1930).
Figure 1: The cold flat rolling process.
Since the speed of the strip is increased passing through the rolls and its initial velocity is less
than the rolls speed there must be a point at which both strip and rolls move exactly with the
same velocity. This is called the neutral point. Before the neutral point, the strip moves slower
than the rolls and the friction force tends to draw the material into the roll gap. Beyond the
neutral point, friction opposes the delivery of the strip, which now moves faster than the rolls.
In a steady state situation the strip adjust its velocity with respect to the driving rolls in such a
way that the external stresses acting on the strip are in equilibrium. This condition determines
the position of the neutral point.
Because of friction is compelling for the rolls to draw the material into the roll gap there must
be a critical friction coefficient for rolling to occur. Bellow this value cold flat rolling is not
possible. Other important parameters of the process apart from the position of the neutral
point are; the roll pressure distribution, the total power required, the rolling torque and the
total load on the rolls.

6 G. Echave
Front and back tensions have to be taken into account in cold flat rolling calculations because
they are one of the most efficient ways of controlling the thickness of the rolled stock.
To measure the amount of rolling of a strip we use the thickness reduction defined as follows:
e1 − e2 ⎛e ⎞ e 1
r= = 1− ⎜ 2 ⎟ ⇒ 1 = (7)
e1 ⎝ e1 ⎠ e2 1 − r
Bipolar cylindrical coordinates are used to solve the plastic problem in the roll gap because of
obvious symmetry considerations. The arc of contact with the rolls has a very simple equation
η = ±η0 , and the boundaries of the forming region are also cylinders, ξ = ξ 0 (η ) at the roll
gap entrance Σ1+ and ξ = π at the roll gap exit Σ +2 . The incompressible velocity field in these
coordinates has one component only vξ . A self-consistent solution for the stress field is only
possible using this system of coordinates. Therefore, because the plastic velocity field is
minimum, the boundaries of the flow and the geometry of the process have simple equations,
and there is a self-consistent solution for the plastic stress field, bipolar cylindrical
coordinates are the Natural System of Coordinates for this plastic deformation process.
Figure 2 is our geometric model for cold flat rolling. The main parameters are:
R Radius of the deformed rolls.

e1 Thickness of the sheet before rolling.
e2 Thickness of the sheet after rolling.
( ξ ,η ) Bipolar coordinates.
Σ1+ Roll gap entrance. ξ = ξ 0 (η )
Σ +2 Roll gap exit. ξ = π
Σ 3+ Arc of contact between the rolls and the strip.
Ω1 Metal sheet before rolling.
Ω2 Forming region or roll gap.
Ω3 Metal sheet after rolling.
v1 Velocity of the sheet before rolling.
v2 Velocity of the sheet after rolling.
ω Angular velocity of the rolls.
ξN Bipolar coordinate of the neutral point.
±η0 Bipolar coordinates of the rolls.
σ1 Backward tension or back push.
σ2 Forward tension or front pull.
Using the incompressibility condition before and after the roll gap, we get:
∫Σ +
vdσ = 0 ⇒ v1e1 = v2e2 (8)

Figure 2: Geometric model for cold flat rolling.
The relations between Cartesian and bipolar cylindrical coordinates are:
x1 = ξ x2 = η x3 = z (9)
a sinh η a sin ξ
x= y= z=z (10)
( cosh η − cos ξ ) ( cosh η − cos ξ )
π ≤ ξ < 2π −∞ < η < ∞ −∞ < z < ∞ (11)
Because bipolar coordinates are orthogonal, the components of the metric tensor are:
a a
g1 = g2 = g3 = 1 gij = 0 ∀i ≠ j (12)
We are going to apply equation (5) to cold rolling of sheet and strip under forward and
backward tensions. To this aim, we will consider the different regions of the sheet as appear
in Figure 2. Without loss of generality, only one unit in the z direction will be considered.
∫ ti vi dS = σ v e
2 2 2 − σ 1v1e1 + ∫ σ ξη (ξ ,η ) vξ (ξ ,η ) dS
0 0
(13)
∂V Σ3+
2
∫ ti vi dS = Dij Dij dV + ∫ σ ξη (ξ = ξ 0 ) Δv(1,2) Σ+ dS
3 dyn V∫
C σY (14)
1
∂V Σ+ 1

8 G. Echave
The first term on the right side of equation (14) is the power of deformation and the second
the shear power at the roll gap entrance Σ1+ , necessary for a sudden change in the velocity
field. There is no redistribution of the velocity field at the roll gap exit because the velocity is
already normal to the boundary Σ +2 .
4.2 Kinematics of the Flow. Plastic Velocity Field
To start the calculations we are going to establish an admissible velocity field using the
incompressibility condition and plane strain. An obvious guess for this field will be:
vξ = v1 f (ξ ,η ) vη = 0 vz = 0 (15)
The incompressibility condition ∇v = 0 in general orthogonal coordinates and in the special

case of bipolar cylindrical coordinates using the velocity field (15) are:
1 ⎡ ∂ ∂ ∂ ⎤
∇v = ⎢ ( g 2 g3v1 ) + ( g1 g3v2 ) + ( g1 g 2v3 ) ⎥ (16)
g1 g 2 g3 ⎣ ∂x1 ∂x2 ∂x3 ⎦
⎛ v1 ⎞ 2 ∂ ⎡ f (ξ ,η ) ⎤
⎟ ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ∂ξ
∇v = ⎜ ⎢ ⎥=0 (17)
a
⎝ ⎠ ⎣⎢ cosh η − cos ξ ⎦⎥
Because ξ ∈ [π , 2π ) we have ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ≠ 0 and therefore:
∂ ⎡ f ( ξ ,η ) ⎤ f ( ξ ,η )
⎢ ⎥ =0⇒ = h (η ) (18)
∂ξ ⎣ cosh η − cos ξ ⎦ ( cosh η − cos ξ )
f (ξ ,η ) = ( cosh η − cos ξ ) h (η ) (19)
vξ = v1 ( cosh η − cos ξ ) h (η ) (20)
The strip at the exit must move as a rigid body with constant velocity v2 and therefore:
e1 ⎛e ⎞ 1
vξ (π ,η ) = v1 ( cosh η + 1) h (η ) = −v2 = −v1 ⇒ h (η ) = − ⎜ 1 ⎟ (21)
e2 ⎝ e2 ⎠ ( cosh η + 1)
⎛ e ⎞ ( cosh η − cos ξ )
vξ (ξ ,η ) = −v1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ (22)
⎝ e2 ⎠ ( cosh η + 1)
Because at the intersection of the central plane η = 0 with the shear boundary Σ1+ the velocity
field must equal the input velocity of the strip we must have:

⎛ e1 ⎞ (1 − cos ξ0 )
v
vξ (ξ0 ,η = 0 ) = −v1 = −v1 ⎜ ⎟
v
(23)
⎝ e2 ⎠ 2
From this kinematics consideration, we get one of the points of the boundary Σ1+ :
cos ξ 0v = 1 − ( 2e2 e1 ) = 2r − 1 (24)
If the position of the neutral point is given, we have:
⎛ e ⎞ ( cosh η0 − cos ξ N )
vξ (ξ N ,η0 ) = v1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ = ωR (25)
e
⎝ 2⎠ ( cosh η 0 + 1)
The input velocity of the strip will be therefore:
⎛ e ⎞ ( cosh η0 + 1) ω R
v1 = ⎜ 2 ⎟ (26)
⎝ e1 ⎠ ( cosh η0 − cos ξ N )
For the output velocity of the strip after rolling, we have:
v2 =
( coshη0 + 1) ω R
(27)
( coshη0 − cos ξ N )
Finally, the velocity field as function of the angular velocity of the rolls will be:
⎛ e ⎞ ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ( coshη − cos ξ )( coshη0 + 1) ω R

vξ (ξ ,η ) = −v1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ =− (28)
⎝ e2 ⎠ ( cosh η + 1) ( cosh η0 − cos ξ N )( coshη + 1)
4.3 Approximations for Cold Rolling of Sheet and Strip
Before to proceed with the rest of the exposition, and in order to simplify the calculations, we
are going to establish suitable approximations for cold flat rolling.
The arcs of contact with the rolls (being 2a the focal distance) and the iso-surfaces of the
flow, have the following equations respectively:
2
⎛ a ⎞
y + ( x ± a coth η0 )
2
2
=⎜ ⎟ =R
2
(29)
⎝ sinh η0 ⎠
2
⎛ a ⎞
x + ( y − a cot ξ 0 ) ∀ξ 0 ∈ [π , 2π )
2
2
=⎜ ⎟ (30)
⎝ sin ξ 0 ⎠

10 G. Echave
The final thickness of the strip will be therefore:
⎛ a ⎞
e2 = 2 ⎜ a coth η0 − ⎟ = 2 R ( cosh η0 − 1) (31)
⎝ sinh η0 ⎠
The bipolar coordinates of the rolls and the coordinates of the foci are therefore:
e2
cosh η0 = 1 + (32)
2R
2
⎛ e ⎞
a = ± R sinh η0 → a = ± R cosh η0 − 1 = ± R ⎜1 + 2 ⎟ − 1
2
(33)
⎝ 2R ⎠
The intersection of the boundary Σ1+ with the rolls is:
a sinh η0 R e1
x= = ( cosh η
2
− 1) = (34)
( coshη 0 − cos ξ 0
l
) ⎛
⎜1 +
e2 l⎞
− cos ξ 0 ⎟
0
2
⎝ 2R ⎠
R ⎛ e2 ⎛ e2 ⎞2 ⎞ e1
x= ⎜⎜ + ⎜ ⎟ ⎟= (35)
⎛ e2 l ⎞⎝ R ⎝ 2 R ⎠ ⎟⎠ 2
⎜1 + − cos ξ0 ⎟
⎝ 2R ⎠
2e2 e2 ⎛ e2 ⎞ 2e2
cos ξ 0l = 1 − + ⎜1 − ⎟ > 1 − = cos ξ0v (36)
e1 2 R ⎝ e1 ⎠ e1
e2
In cold rolling of sheet and strip the following approximation holds: < 0.005 (37)
2R
In these conditions, we have therefore:
e2 η02 e
cosh η0 = 1 + ≅ 1+ ⇒ η0 ≅ 2 ⇒ 1 < cosh η < 1.005 ⇒ cosh η = 1 (38)
2R 2 R
e2
sinh η0 ≅ η0 = ⇒ 0 < sinh 2 η < 0.01 ⇒ sinh 2 η = 0 (39)
R
a = R sinh η0 ≅ Rη0 = e2 R (40)
2e2 e2 ⎛ e2 ⎞ 2e2
cos ξ 0l = 1 − + ⎜1 − ⎟ ≅ 1 − = cos ξ 0v ⇒ ξ 0l = ξ 0v = ξ 0 (41)
e1 2 R ⎝ e1 ⎠ e1

Equation (41) means that the ξ coordinate of three points of the boundary Σ1+ are the same at
this level of approximation and therefore this boundary degenerates in a circle of constant
bipolar coordinate ξ 0l = ξ 0v = ξ 0 .
4.4 Symmetric Component of the Velocity Gradient. (Strain Rates)
Using the plastic velocity field (22), we compute the tensor Dij in bipolar cylindrical
coordinates.
1 ∂v1 v ∂g1 v ∂g1

D11 = + 2 + 3 (42)
g1 ∂x1 g1 g 2 ∂x2 g1 g3 ∂x3
1 ∂v2 v ∂g 2 v ∂g 2
D22 = + 1 + 3 (43)
g 2 ∂x2 g 2 g1 ∂x1 g 2 g3 ∂x3
1 ∂v3 v ∂g3 v ∂g 3
D33 = + 1 + 2 (44)
g3 ∂x3 g3 g1 ∂x1 g3 g 2 ∂x2
1 ⎡ g 2 ∂ ⎛ v2 ⎞ g1 ∂ ⎛ v1 ⎞ ⎤
D12 = ⎢ ⎜ ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟⎥ (45)
2 ⎣ g1 ∂x1 ⎝ g 2 ⎠ g 2 ∂x2 ⎝ g1 ⎠ ⎦
1 ⎡ g3 ∂ ⎛ v3 ⎞ g 2 ∂ ⎛ v2 ⎞ ⎤
D23 = ⎢ ⎜ ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟⎥ (46)
2 ⎣ g 2 ∂x2 ⎝ g3 ⎠ g3 ∂x3 ⎝ g 2 ⎠ ⎦
1 ⎡ g1 ∂ ⎛ v1 ⎞ g3 ∂ ⎛ v3 ⎞ ⎤
D31 = ⎢ ⎜ ⎟+ ⎜ ⎟⎥ (47)
2 ⎣ g3 ∂x3 ⎝ g1 ⎠ g1 ∂x1 ⎝ g3 ⎠ ⎦
After calculation, we get the following expressions for the strain rates:
1 ∂vξ ⎛ e ⎞ ⎛ cosh η − cos ξ ⎞ sin ξ

Dξξ = = −v1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (48)
gξ ∂ξ ⎝ e2 ⎠ ⎝ a ⎠ ( cosh η + 1)
vξ ∂gη
Dηη = = − Dξξ (49)
gη gξ ∂ξ
Dzz = Dξ z = Dη z = 0 (50)
1 ⎡ g ∂ ⎛ vξ ⎞ ⎤ 1 ⎡ ∂ ⎛ vξ ⎞⎤ 1 ⎛ e ⎞ ∂ ( cosh η − cos ξ )
2
Dξη = ⎢ ξ ⎜ ⎟⎥ = ⎢ ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ = − v1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ (51)
2 ⎣⎢ gη ∂η ⎜⎝ gξ ⎟⎠ ⎦⎥ 2 ⎣⎢ ∂η ⎜⎝ gξ ⎠ ⎦⎥ 2 ⎝ e2 ⎠ ∂η a ( cosh η + 1)

12 G. Echave
1 ⎛ e ⎞ ∂ ( cosh η − cos ξ )
2
Dξη = − v1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ (52)
2 ⎝ e2 ⎠ ∂η a ( cosh η + 1)
⎛ e ⎞ ⎛ cosh η − cos ξ ⎞ sinh η ⎡ 1 ⎛ cos ξ + 1 ⎞ ⎤

Dξη = −v1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎜1 + ⎟⎥ (53)
⎝ e2 ⎠ ⎝ a ⎠ ( cosh η + 1) ⎣ 2 ⎝ cosh η + 1 ⎠ ⎦
Considering apart the value of the last bracket to simplify equation (53), we have in the cold
flat rolling approximation:
1⎛ cos ξ + 1 ⎞ ⎛ cos ξ + 3 ⎞ ⎛ cos ξ + 2 ⎞ ⎛ η 2 ⎞

Ψ ( ξ ,η ) = ⎜ 1 + ⎟≅⎜ ⎟−⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ≅ Ψ (ξ ) (54)
2 ⎝ cosh η + 1 ⎠ ⎝ 4 ⎠ ⎝ 4 ⎠⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ e ⎞ ⎛ cosh η − cos ξ ⎞ sinh η

Dξη ≅ −v1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ Ψ (ξ ) (55)
⎝ e2 ⎠ ⎝ a ⎠ ( cosh η + 1)
Obviously, the incompressibility condition is fulfilled by the rates above:
Dii = Dξξ + Dηη + Dzz = 0 (56)
The expression for the equivalent plastic strain rate is:
2 2 2
D=
3
Dij Dij =
3
(
Dξξ + Dηη
2
+ 2 Dξη
2
) (57)
2 ⎛ v1 ⎞ ⎛ e1 ⎞ ⎛ cosh η − cos ξ ⎞
D= ⎟ sin ξ + Ψ (ξ ) sinh η
2 2 2
⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ (58)
3 ⎝ a ⎠ ⎝ e2 ⎠ ⎝ cosh η + 1 ⎠
Integration of equation (58) ignoring the shear strain rate gives a measure of plastic strain.
∂ε P ⎧⎪⎛ vξ ⎞ ⎫⎪ P ⎛ vξ ⎞
D= + ⎨⎜ ⎟ ∂ξ ⎬ ε = ⎜ ⎟ ∂ξ ε
P
(59)
∂t ⎪⎩⎜⎝ gξ ⎟
⎠ ⎪⎭
⎜ gξ
⎝
⎟
⎠
⎛ e ⎞ ( cosh η − cos ξ )
2
D = −v1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ ∂ξ ε P (60)
⎝ e2 ⎠ a ( cosh η + 1)
2 sin ξ + Ψ (ξ ) sinh η
2 2 2
∂ξ ε P
=− (61)
3 ( cosh η − cos ξ )
2 sin ξ
∂ξ ε P ≅ (62)
3 (1 − cos ξ )

2 ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ 2
εP ≅∫ ⎜ ⎟dξ + C = ln (1 − cos ξ ) + C (63)
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 3
Using the boundary condition for the strain field, ε P (ξ 0 ,η ) = 0 we finally get:
2 ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ 2 ⎡ e1 ⎤ 2
ε P (ξ ) = ln ⎜ ⎟= ln ⎢ ⎥=− ln ⎡⎣1 − r (ξ ) ⎤⎦ (64)
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ 3 ⎣⎢ e (ξ ) ⎦⎥ 3
In the same manner, we could calculate for the components (48), (49) and (55).
4.5 Average Measures of Strain and Strain Rate
Using the approximations abovementioned, we are going to establish suitable measures of

strain and strain rate for cold flat rolling.
The equation for the equivalent plastic strain rate at this level of approximation and ignoring
the influence of the shear on the flow structure is:
1 ⎛ v1 ⎞ ⎛ e1 ⎞
D (ξ ) = − ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (1 − cos ξ ) sin ξ (65)
3 ⎝ a ⎠ ⎝ e2 ⎠
We define the average strain rate in the roll gap (Figure 3) as follows:
1 1 η0 ξ0 ⎡ 1 ⎛ v1 ⎞ ⎛ e1 ⎞ ⎤ a2
( ) ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟( )
A ∫Ω2 A ∫−η0 ∫π ⎣ 3 ⎝ a ⎠ ⎝ e2 ⎠
D= D ξ dA ≅ ⎢ − 1 − cos ξ sin ξ ⎥ dη d ξ (66)
( )
2
⎦ 1 − cos ξ
ξ 0 η0 a2 η0 ξ0 a2
A=∫ ∫ η ( cosh η − cos ξ ) dη dξ ≅ ∫ η ∫π (1 − cos ξ ) dξ dη
2 2
(67)
π − 0 − 0
1 η0 ⎡ a ⎛ e1 ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎞
A ∫−η0 ⎣ 3 ⎝ e2 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝
D=− ⎢ ⎜ ⎟ v1 ⎥ ln ⎜ ⎟dη (68)
2 ⎠
2 ⎡ a ⎛ e1 ⎞ ⎤ ⎛ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎞
D=− ⎢ ⎜ ⎟ v1 ⎥ ln ⎜ ⎟η 0 (69)
A ⎣ 3 ⎝ e2 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ 2 ⎠
2 ⎡ v1 ⎤ ⎡ e2 e2 ⎛ e2 ⎞ ⎤
D=− e1 ln ⎢ − ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎥ (70)
A ⎢⎣ 3 ⎥⎦ ⎣ e1 4 R ⎝ e1 ⎠ ⎦
The area of the roll gap Ω 2 in the cold flat rolling approximation (see Appendix) is:

14 G. Echave
Figure 3: Average strain rate in cold flat rolling.
Figure 4: Average strain in cold flat rolling.

ξ0 dξ
A = 2a 2η0 ∫ (71)
(1 − cos ξ )
π 2
ξ
dξ ⎛ ξ ⎞ ⎡ 2 − cos ξ ⎤ ⎛ ξ ⎞ ⎡ 2 − cos ξ 0 ⎤
0
ξ0 1 1
I =∫ = − cot ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ = − cot ⎜ 0 ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ (72)
(1 − cos ξ ) ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎣ 1 − cos ξ ⎦π ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎣ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎦
π 2
3 3
1 e1 − e2 ⎡ e1 + 2e2 ⎤ 1
I= ⎢ ⎥⇒ A= R ( e1 − e2 ) [ e1 + 2e2 ] (73)
3 e2 ⎣ 2e2 ⎦ 3
v1 3 ⎛ 2e1 ⎞ ⎡ e1 ⎤
D= ⎜ ⎟ ln ⎢ ⎥ (74)
R e1 − e2 ⎝ e1 + 2e2 ⎠ ⎣ e2 ⎦
v1 ⎛ 2 ⎞ 3
D= ⎜ ⎟ ln (1 − r ) (75)
e1 R ⎝ 2r − 3 ⎠ r
We can define in the same manner an average measure of strain (Figure 4).
1 1 η0 ξ0 ⎡ 2 ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ ⎤ a2
A ∫Ω2 A ∫−η0 ∫π ⎣ 3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ ⎦ (1 − cos ξ )2
ε= ε P
dA ≅ ⎢ ln ⎜ ⎟⎥ dη d ξ (76)
1 2 ξ0 ⎡ 2 ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ ⎤ dξ
ε= 2a η 0 ∫ ⎢ ln ⎜ ⎟⎥ (77)
⎣ 3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ ⎦ (1 − cos ξ )
π 2
A
Integrating by parts, we have:
⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ dξ
u = ln ⎜ ⎟ dv = (78)
⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ (1 − cos ξ )
2
4 ⎛ a 2η0 ⎞ ξ0 ⎛ξ ⎞ ⎡ 2 − cos ξ ⎤
3 3 ⎝ A ⎠ ∫π
ε= ⎜ ⎟ cot ⎜ ⎟ sin ξ ⎢ 2⎥
dξ (79)
⎝2⎠ ⎢⎣ (1 − cos ξ ) ⎥⎦
4 1 − r ⎡ 1 − r ⎤ cos−1 ( 2 r −1) ⎛ ξ ⎞ ⎡ 2 − cos ξ ⎤

r ⎢⎣ 3 − 2r ⎥⎦ ∫π
ε= cot ⎜ ⎟ sin ξ ⎢ 2⎥
dξ (80)
3 ⎝2⎠ ⎢⎣ (1 − cos ξ ) ⎥⎦
Change of variable: ξ = cos −1 ( 2 x − 1) .
2 1− r ⎡ 1− r ⎤ r x ⎡ 3 − 2x ⎤
r ⎢⎣ 3 − 2r ⎥⎦ ∫0 1 − x ⎣⎢ (1 − x )2 ⎦⎥
ε= ⎢ ⎥ dx (81)
3

16 G. Echave
Performing the integral (see Appendix), we have finally:
4 ⎛ 6 − 5r ⎞ 8 1 − r ⎛ 1 − r ⎞ ⎛ e2 ⎞
ε= ⎜ ⎟− ⎜ ⎟ arcsin r ≅ 0.9r = 0.9 ⎜ 1 − ⎟ (82)
3 3 ⎝ 3 − 2r ⎠ 3 r ⎝ 3 − 2r ⎠ ⎝ e1 ⎠
Equation (82) suggests that thickness reduction is a good measure of plastic strain.
4.6 Plastic Stress Field in the Rigid Perfectly Plastic Model
To compute the plastic stress field in the roll gap Ω 2 , we are going to start using a priori the
assumption of a rigid perfectly plastic Von Mises continuum along with the Levy-Mises flow
rule to relate stresses and strain rates and obtain the hardening parameter λ . This will allow
the computation of the shear stress σ ξη , getting the remaining components of the stress tensor
using the equations of internal equilibrium. The rigid perfectly plastic model works due to the
counterbalance of strain hardening and thermal softening when the high speed involved in the
process of cold flat rolling brings the quasi-adiabatic regime to the roll gap.
The Levy-Mises equations in bipolar cylindrical coordinates and plane strain take the
following form:
λ
Dξξ = ⎡ 2σ ξξ − σ ηη − σ zz ⎤⎦ (83)
3⎣
λ
Dηη = ⎡ 2σ ηη − σ ξξ − σ zz ⎤⎦ = − Dξξ (84)
3⎣
λ
Dzz = ⎡ 2σ zz − σ ξξ − σ ηη ⎤⎦ = 0 (85)
3⎣
Dξη = λσ ξη (86)
Dξ z = λσ ξ z = 0 → σ ξ z = 0 (87)
Dη z = λση z = 0 → ση z = 0 (88)
1
σ zz = ⎡⎣σ ξξ + σ ηη ⎤⎦ (89)
2
The Von Mises criterion in plane strain has the following expression:
1 2 σ C2
σ ξη2 + ⎡⎣σ ξξ − σ ηη ⎤⎦ = (90)
4 3

From equations (83) and (84), we get:
2Dξξ = λ ⎡⎣σ ξξ − σ ηη ⎤⎦ (91)
2
Dξη Dξξ2 σ C2
+ = (92)
λ2 λ2 3
1 ⎡ ⎧⎪⎛ v1 ⎞ ⎛ e1 ⎞ ⎛ cosh η − cos ξ ⎤ σ2

2
⎞ ⎪⎫
⎢⎨ ⎜ ⎟
λ 2 ⎢ ⎪⎩⎜⎝ a ⎟⎠ ⎝ e2 ⎠ ⎜⎝ cosh η + 1 ⎟ ⎬ {sin 2
ξ + Ψ 2
( ξ ) sinh 2
η } ⎥ = C
⎥ 3
(93)
⎣ ⎠ ⎪⎭ ⎦
Dξη σC Ψ (ξ ) sinh η
σ ξη = =− (94)
λ 3 sin ξ + Ψ 2 (ξ ) sinh 2 η
2
2 Dξξ 2σ C sin ξ
σ ξξ − σ ηη = =− (95)
λ 3 sin 2 ξ + Ψ 2 (ξ ) sinh 2 η
To calculate the rest of the components of the stress tensor we rely on the differential
equations of equilibrium in the roll gap ignoring volumetric and inertial forces. The general
expression is:
Dvi ⎡ ∂v ⎤
σ ij , j = ρ = ρ ⎢ i + {vr ∂ r } vi ⎥ ≅ 0 (96)
Dt ⎣ ∂t ⎦
In orthogonal coordinates, these equations take the following form:
∂ 1 3 g1 g 2 g3 ∂g 2j ∂ ⎛ g1 g 2 g3 gi2 ⎞
( g1 g 2 g3σ ii ) − ∑ 2 σ jj +∑ ⎜⎜ σ ij ⎟ = 0
⎟
(97)
∂xi 2 j =1 g j ∂xi j ≠i ∂x j ⎝ gi g j ⎠
For the special case of bipolar cylindrical coordinates, one of the equations reduces to (89).
The remaining two have the following expressions:
∂ ⎡ σ ηη ⎤ 1 ∂ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ∂ ⎡ σ ξη ⎤
⎢ 2⎥
− (σ ξξ + σ ηη ) ⎢ 2 ⎥
+ ⎢ 2⎥
= 0 (98)
∂η ⎢⎣ ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ⎥⎦ 2 ∂η ⎢⎣ ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ⎥⎦ ∂ξ ⎢⎣ ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ⎥⎦
∂ ⎡ σ ξξ ⎤ 1 ∂ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ∂ ⎡ σ ξη ⎤
⎢ 2⎥
− (σ ξξ + σ ηη ) ⎢ 2⎥
+ ⎢ 2⎥
= 0 (99)
∂ξ ⎢⎣ ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ⎥⎦ 2 ∂ξ ⎢⎣ ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ⎥⎦ ∂η ⎢⎣ ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ⎥⎦
1 ∂σ ηη 1 ∂ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ∂ ⎡ σ ξη ⎤
− ( σ ξξ − σ ηη ) ⎢ 2⎥
+ ⎢ 2⎥
= 0 (100)
( cosh η − cos ξ ) ∂η ∂η ⎢⎣ ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ⎥⎦ ∂ξ ⎢⎣ ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ⎥⎦
2
2

18 G. Echave
1 ∂σ ξξ 1 ∂ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ∂ ⎡ σ ξη ⎤
+ ( σ ξξ − σ ηη ) ⎢ ⎥ + ⎢ ⎥ = 0 (101)
( cosh η − cos ξ ) ∂ξ ∂ξ ⎣⎢ ( cosh η − cos ξ )2 ⎦⎥ ∂η ⎢⎣ ( cosh η − cos ξ )2 ⎦⎥
2
2
Using (94) and (95) in equations (100) and (101) and operating, we have:
∂σ ηη 2σ C sin ξ ⎛ sinh η ⎞
− ⎡⎣1 − Ψ (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ⎜ ⎟
∂η 3 sin ξ + Ψ 2 (ξ ) sinh 2 η
2
⎝ cosh η − cos ξ ⎠
(102)
σ C ⎡⎣ Ψ ′ (ξ ) sin ξ − Ψ (ξ ) sin ξ cos ξ ⎤⎦
2
− 3
sinh η = 0
3
⎣⎡sin ξ + Ψ (ξ ) sinh η ⎦⎤
2 2 2 2
∂σ ξξ 2σ sin 2 ξ + Ψ sinh 2 η ⎞ σ C Ψ (ξ ) sin ξ cosh η

2
⎛ 1
+ C ⎜ ⎟− =0 (103)
∂ξ 3 sin 2 ξ + Ψ 2 sinh 2 η ⎝ cosh η − cos ξ
3
⎠ 3
( sin ξ + Ψ sinh η )
2 2 2 2
Rewriting equation (103) in the cold flat rolling approximation and using the second order
Taylor expansion (see Appendix) to calculate the disturbing terms, we have:
()
∂σ ξξ 2σ C ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ σ C Ψ (ξ ) ∂σ ξξ ∂σ ξξ( )
1 1
∂ξ
− ⎜ ⎟+
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 3 sin ξ
+
∂ξ
Ψ n≤1
+
∂ξ
Ψ n >1 = 0 { } { } (104)
∂σ ξξ( )
1
2σ C sin ξ ⎛ η 2 ⎞ σ C ⎡ Ψ ⎤ ⎛ 3 + cos ξ ⎞⎛η2 ⎞
∂ξ
{Ψ } n ≤1
= 2 ⎜
3 (1 − cos ξ ) ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎟− ⎢ ⎥⎜
3 ⎣ sin ξ ⎦ ⎝ 1 − cos ξ
⎟⎜ ⎟ (105)
⎠⎝ 2 ⎠
∂σ ξξ( )
1 2 3
2σ ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ ⎡ Ψ ⎤ ⎛ η 2 ⎞ 3σ C ⎡ Ψ ⎤ ⎛η2 ⎞
∂ξ
{ Ψ n >1
} = C⎜ ⎟⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟−
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ ⎣ sin ξ ⎦ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎢ ⎥
3 ⎣ sin ξ ⎦
⎜ ⎟ (106)
⎝ 2 ⎠
Ignoring disturbing terms, the Zero Order Theory appears:
∂σ ξξ( ) 2σ C ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ σ C Ψ (ξ )
0
− ⎜ ⎟+ =0 (107)
∂ξ 3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 3 sin ξ
2σ C σ Ψ (ξ ) 2σ σ
σ ξξ( 0) = ln (1 − cos ξ ) − C ∫ d ξ + C = C ln (1 − cos ξ ) − C ∫ H ′ (ξ )d ξ + C (108)
3 3 sin ξ 3 3
2σ C σ
σ ξξ( 0) = ln (1 − cos ξ ) − C H (ξ ) + C (109)
3 3
Ψ (ξ )
= H ′ (ξ ) ⇒ Ψ (ξ ) = H ′ (ξ ) sin ξ (110)
sin ξ

For equations (94) and (95), we have in the zero order theory the following approximations:
Dξη σC Ψ (ξ ) sinh η σ C ⎡ Ψ (ξ ) ⎤ σC
σ ξη = =− ≅ ⎢ ⎥η = H ′ ( ξ )η (111)
λ 3 sin 2 ξ + Ψ 2 (ξ ) sinh 2 η 3 ⎣ sin ξ ⎦ 3
2σ C sin ξ 2σ C
σ ξξ − σ ηη = − ≅ (112)
3 sin 2 ξ + Ψ 2 (ξ ) sinh 2 η 3
The stress field (109) has one degree of freedom, using the condition of back push, we have:
2σ C ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ σ C
σ ξξ( 0) (ξ , ξ 0 ) = σ 1 + ln ⎜ ⎟− ⎡⎣ H (ξ ) − H (ξ 0 ) ⎤⎦ ∀ξ ∈ [ξ N , ξ 0 ] (113)
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ 3
Because front pull is also a degree of freedom, we must have:
2σ C ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ σC
σ ξξ( 0) (ξ , π ) = σ 2 + ln ⎜ ⎟− ⎡⎣ H (ξ ) − H (π ) ⎤⎦ ∀ξ ∈ [π , ξ N ] (114)
3 ⎝ 2 ⎠ 3
We have reduced the problem of cold flat rolling to a combined problem of forward and
backward extrusion with the same velocity field and source in the friction force. Because a
self-consistent solution for the stress field allows only a constant of integration, we must solve
a field from the roll bite to the neutral point and another field from this point to the roll gap
exit. At the neutral point, the two extrusions merge and therefore, we have:
σ ξξ( 0) (ξ N , ξ 0 ) = σ ξξ( 0) (ξ N , π ) ⇒ σ ηη
( 0)
(ξ N , ξ0 ) = σ ηη( 0) (ξ N , π ) (115)
Because the zero order stresses only depend on the ξ coordinate, the friction model with the
rolls allows a direct computation of the stress field. We consider firstly the problem from the
roll gap entrance to the neutral point. The friction force with the rolls tends to draw the strip
into the roll gap. Using the Coulomb friction model, we have:
σ ξη (ξ ,η0 ) = μσ ηη (ξ , ξ 0 ) ∀ξ ∈ [ξ N , ξ 0 ] (116)
⎧⎪ 2σ C 2σ C ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ σ C ⎫⎪ σ
μ ⎨σ 1 − + ln ⎜ ⎟− ⎡⎣ H (ξ ) − H (ξ 0 ) ⎤⎦ ⎬ = C H ′ (ξ )η0 (117)
⎩⎪ 3 3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ 3 ⎭⎪ 3
⎛ μ ⎞ ⎧⎪ σ ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ ⎫⎪
H ′ (ξ ) − ⎜ ⎟ ⎨ 1 − 2 + 2 ln ⎜ ⎟ − ⎡⎣ H (ξ ) − H (ξ 0 ) ⎤⎦ ⎬ = 0 (118)
⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎩⎪ k ⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ ⎭⎪
⎛μ⎞ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎧⎪ σ ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ ⎫⎪
F ′ (ξ ) + ⎜ ⎟ F (ξ ) − 2 ⎜ ⎟ ⎨ 1 − 1 + ln ⎜ ⎟⎬ = 0 (119)
⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎩⎪ 2k ⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ ⎭⎪

20 G. Echave
We can solve in the same manner from the neutral point to the roll gap exit. In this case, the
friction force with the rolls opposes the delivery of the rolled stock.
σ ξη (ξ ,η0 ) = − μσ ηη (ξ , π ) ∀ξ ∈ [π , ξ N ] (120)
⎧ 2σ C 2σ C ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ σ C ⎫ σ
μ ⎨σ 2 − + ln ⎜ ⎟− ⎡⎣ H (ξ ) − H (π ) ⎤⎦ ⎬ = − C H ′ (ξ )η0 (121)
⎩ 3 3 ⎝ 2 ⎠ 3 ⎭ 3
⎛ μ ⎞ ⎧σ ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ ⎫
H ′ (ξ ) + ⎜ ⎟ ⎨ 2 − 2 + 2 ln ⎜ ⎟ − ⎡⎣ H (ξ ) − H (π ) ⎤⎦ ⎬ = 0 (122)
⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎩ k ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎭
⎛μ⎞ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎧σ ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ ⎫
F ′ (ξ ) − ⎜ ⎟ F (ξ ) + 2 ⎜ ⎟ ⎨ 2 − 1 + ln ⎜ ⎟⎬ = 0 (123)
⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎩ 2k ⎝ 2 ⎠⎭
Solving the differential equation (119), we have:
⎡ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ⎪⎧ σ ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ ⎪⎫ ⎤
F (ξ ) = 2 exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ⎢ A + ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ⎨ 1 − 1 + ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎬ dξ ⎥ (124)
⎣ ⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎢
⎦⎣ ⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎪
⎦⎩ 2 k ⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ ⎪⎭ ⎥⎦
Using the boundary condition at the roll gap entrance and equations (112) and (113), we have
for the first half of the stress field:
F (ξ 0 ) = 0 (125)
⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ ξ⎛μ⎞ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ⎪⎧ σ ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ ⎪⎫

F (ξ ) = 2 exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ⎨ 1 − 1 + ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎬ dξ (126)
⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ 0 ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎣⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎪⎩ 2k ⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ ⎪⎭
ξ
⎪⎧ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ ⎪⎫ ⎧ σ ⎫
F (ξ ) = 2 ⎨1 − exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ (ξ − ξ 0 ) ⎥ ⎬ ⎨ 1 − 1 − ln (1 − cos ξ 0 ) ⎬
⎪⎩ η
⎣ ⎝ 0⎠ ⎦ ⎪⎭ ⎩ 2 k ⎭
(127)
⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ ξ⎛μ ⎞ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
+2 exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) d ξ
⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ 0 ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦
ξ
2σ C 2σ C ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞ σ C
( 0)
σ ηη (ξ , ξ 0 ) = σ 1 − + ln ⎜ ⎟− F (ξ ) (128)
3 3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ 3
⎧ 2σ C 2σ C ⎫ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ 2σ
( 0)
σ ηη (ξ , ξ0 ) = ⎨σ 1 − − ln (1 − cos ξ 0 ) ⎬ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ (ξ − ξ 0 ) ⎥ + C ln (1 − cos ξ )
⎩ 3 3 ⎭ ⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ 3
(129)
2σ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ ξ⎛μ⎞ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
− C exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) d ξ
⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ 0 ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦
3 ξ

In the same manner, we can solve equation (123) to get the second half of the stress field:
⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ξ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ⎧σ ⎛ 1 − cos ξ ⎞⎫
F (ξ ) = 2 exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ⎨ 2 − 1 + ln ⎜ ⎟⎬ dξ (130)
⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎩ 2k
π ⎝ 2 ⎠⎭
⎧ 2σ C 2σ C ⎫ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ 2σ
( 0)
σ ηη (ξ , π ) = ⎨σ 2 − − ln 2 ⎬ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ (ξ − π ) ⎥ + C ln (1 − cos ξ )
⎩ 3 3 ⎭ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦ 3
(131)
2σ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ξ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤
+ C exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) d ξ
⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦
3 π
The shear stress in the roll gap using equation (111) has the following expressions:
⎛ η ⎞ ⎧⎪ ⎡ 2σ C 2σ C ⎤ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ 2σ C ⎫⎪
σ ξη (ξ , ξ 0 ) = μ ⎜ ⎟ ⎨⎢ 1σ − − ln (1 − cos ξ )
0 ⎥ exp −
⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ( ξ − ξ )
0 ⎥ + ln (1 − cos ξ ) ⎬
⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎪⎩ ⎣ 3 3 ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ 3 ⎪⎭
⎛ η ⎞ 2σ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ ξ⎛μ⎞ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
− μ ⎜ ⎟ C exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) d ξ (132)
⎝ η0 ⎠ 3 η ξ0 η η
⎣ ⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎦
⎛ η ⎞ ⎧⎪ ⎡ 2σ C 2σ C ⎤ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ 2σ C ⎫⎪
σ ξη (ξ , π ) = − μ ⎜ ⎨
⎟ ⎢ 2 σ − − ln 2 ⎥ exp ⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ( ξ − π ) ⎥ + ln (1 − cos ξ ) ⎬
⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎩⎪ ⎣ 3 3 ⎦ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦ 3 ⎭⎪ (133)
⎛ η ⎞ 2σ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ξ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤
− μ ⎜ ⎟ C exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) dξ
⎝ η0 ⎠ 3 ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ η 0 ⎠
π
⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦
The shear stress is linear in the coordinate η and therefore in x (Prandt L 1923).
Coming back to the Von Mises criterion and using equations (111) and (112), we have:
2 2
1 σ2 ⎡σ ⎤ 1 ⎡ 2σ ⎤ σ 2
+ ⎡⎣σ ξξ − σ ηη ⎤⎦ = C ⇒ ⎢ C H ′ (ξ )η ⎥ + ⎢ C ⎥ = C
2
σ ξη
2
(134)
4 3 ⎣ 3 ⎦ 4⎣ 3 ⎦ 3
σ C2 σ C2 σ C2
{ σ
}
2
H ′ 2 ( ξ )η 2 + Ο ⎡ μ 2 (η η0 ) ⎤ + 1 ≅ C
2
= (135)
3 3 3 ⎣ ⎦ 3
The Von Mises condition is fulfilled in the order of approximation if the friction coefficient is
small enough. In fact, equation (112) could have been established using (134) and ignoring
the shear stress. Therefore, we can say that the Zero Order Theory can be obtained from the
Von Mises criterion and upon symmetry considerations, using the Coulomb friction condition
and ignoring all the details of the plastic flow in the roll gap (Von Karman Th 1925).
Nevertheless, we have proved that it can be made compatible, using equation (110), with a
modified shear strain rate. Therefore, the velocity field (22) can be considered as a good first
approximation to the real structure of the plastic flow in the roll gap (Echave G 2011).

22 G. Echave
To calculate the position of the neutral point in the zero order theory we have to solve the
following transcendental equation coming from condition (115).
⎡ 2σ C 2σ C ⎤ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤
⎢σ − − ln (1 − cos ξ ) ⎥ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ( ξ − ξ ) ⎥
⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠
1 0 N 0
⎣ 3 3 ⎦ ⎦
⎡ 2σ 2σ ⎤ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
− ⎢σ 2 − C − C ln 2 ⎥ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ (ξ N − π ) ⎥ =
⎣ 3 3 ⎦ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦
(136)
2σ C ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ξ N ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤
exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ N ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) dξ
⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦
3 π
2σ ⎡ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ξN ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
+ C exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ N ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) d ξ
⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ 0 ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦
3 ξ
When the back push rises, the neutral point tends to the roll gap exit. If front pull increases,
the opposite occurs. For a given reduction, there is a lower bound or critical friction
coefficient μ LB , for which the neutral point goes to the boundary Σ +2 and cold flat rolling
becomes impossible. From (136) we get the following equation:
⎡σ 2 ⎤ ⎡ σ1 ⎤ ⎡⎛ μ LB ⎞ ⎤
⎢⎣ 2k − 1 − ln 2 ⎥⎦ − ⎢⎣ 2k − 1 − ln (1 − cos ξ 0 ) ⎥⎦ exp ⎢⎜ η ⎟ (ξ 0 − π ) ⎥ =
⎣⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎦
(137)
⎡ ⎛μ ⎞ ⎤ ξ0 ⎛ μ LB ⎞ ⎡⎛ μ LB ⎞ ⎤
exp ⎢ − ⎜ LB ⎟ π ⎥ ∫π ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) dξ
⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦
The influence of the shear stress on the flow structure can be ignored when the following
condition is satisfied.
1 2
1 + H ′2 (ξ N )η02 ≅ 1 + H ′2 (ξ N )η02 ≅ 1 ⇒ H ′ (ξ N ) (138)
2 η0
In this case, friction with the rolls is perturbative for the plastic flow. In practical mill
operation condition (138) holds, and the average measures of strain and strain rate defined
previously remain good measures (Echave G 2011).
Figure 5 is the plot of pressure distribution on the rolls as a function of the normalize angle
from the roll gap exit (see Appendix) using the zero order theory. Therefore, on the left we
have the roll gap exit and on the right the roll gap entrance. The agreement with Von Karman
theory in rolling with and without tension is excellent. Only two parameters determine the roll
pressure distribution, thickness reduction r and rolling parameter ϑ = ( μ η0 ) .
Figure 6 is the plot of the maximum and mean relative error in fulfilling the Von Mises
criterion in the roll gap versus thickness reduction r and rolling parameter ϑ for the zero
order stress field in rolling without tensions. The expressions for these errors are:

Figure 5: Roll pressure distribution in cold flat rolling.
Figure 6: Relative error in fulfilling the Von Mises criterion.

24 G. Echave
σ ξη2
εVM
max
= 2 (ξ N ,η0 ) = H ′2 (ξ N )η02 (139)
k
2 2 3 ξ0 ⎡ H ′ ( ξ ) ⎤
2
1
εVM = ∫ H ′2 (ξ )η 2 dA = a η0 ∫ ⎢ dξ (140)
A Ω2 3A π 1 − cos ξ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎡ 1 − r ⎤ 2 ξ0 ⎡ H ′ ( ξ ) ⎤
2
1− r
εVM =2 ⎢⎣ 3 − 2r ⎥⎦ η0 ∫π ⎢1 − cos ξ ⎥ d ξ (141)
r ⎣ ⎦
Because of the shear structure H ′ (ξ ) only depends on rolling parameter ϑ and thickness
reduction r, we can get the error for different geometric conditions than those on Figure 6.
εVM ( r ,ϑ ,η0 ) = εVM ( r ,ϑ ,η0 = 0.1)(10η0 )

max max 2
(142)
According to this plot, the zero order theory can be considered valid for the combination of
values ( r ,ϑ ≤ 1.2,η0 ≅ 0.1) for all the range of reductions, and eventually can be extended to
greater values (ϑ ≤ 1.5 ) if we consider significant the average error and local errors next to
the rolls and around the neutral point are ignored in the high range of thickness reductions.
The greatest value of the shear stress is obtained in rolling without tensions, therefore the
range of validity of the theory increases with the application of front and back tensions.
Considering the relative errors, we could set arbitrarily the following upper bounds:
εVM
max
( r,ϑ,η0 ,σ [1,2] ) ≤ 30% εVM ( r ,ϑ ,η0 , σ [1,2] ) ≤ 10% (143)
Figures 7 and 8 are the shear stress distributions in cold flat rolling with and without tensions
for a fixed reduction r and rolling parameter ϑ . There is a critical friction coefficient for the
slipping friction hypothesis to hold. Beyond this value, sticking friction with the rolls occurs
around the neutral point when using the zero order plastic stress field.
Table 1: Critical friction coefficients for ( R e2 ) = 102
Thickness Reduction (%) μCR (Slipping) μ LB

10 0.240 0.017
20 0.206 0.025
30 0.187 0.034
40 0.174 0.040
50 0.165 0.050
60 0.160 0.060
70 0.160 0.080
80 0.160 0.110
90 0.170 0.170

Figure 7: Shear stress distribution in cold flat rolling without tension.
Figure 8: Shear stress distribution in cold flat rolling with tension.

26 G. Echave
The slipping friction model is no longer valid when the following condition fulfils:
σC 1
σ ξη (ξ N ,η0 ) ≥ =k⇒ σ ξη (ξ N ,η0 ) ≥ 0.5 (144)
3 2k
Table 1 is the record of the critical friction coefficients for slipping friction to hold in rolling
without tensions using the cold flat rolling approximation, equations (132) and (133) of the
zero order theory and condition (144). The lower bound of the friction coefficient for cold flat
rolling to be possible is also given. For all the thickness reductions the model is within the
range of practical values of the friction coefficient ( μ < 0.12 ) , that can be attained in cold
rolling mill operation and that have been also computed using hydrodynamic and boundary
lubrication models for steel (Yamamoto et al. 2002). They are also beyond the critical value
μ ≅ 0.15 obtained from the fulfillment of the Von Mises criterion.
In Table 2 we have the same magnitudes but in this case we fix the initial value of the strip
thickness. The critical friction coefficient is again within the range of present cold rolling
lubricants and only for very high reductions a sticking friction model could be necessary.
Table 2: Critical friction coefficients for ( R e1 ) = 80
Thickness Reduction (%) μCR (Slipping) μ LB

10 0.250 0.017
20 0.210 0.025
30 0.190 0.031
40 0.170 0.035
50 0.150 0.041
60 0.130 0.044
70 0.113 0.048
80 0.097 0.054
90 0.078 0.061
Static friction cannot be incorporated in the model because equation (94) for the shear stress
prevents condition (144) to be attained, and therefore a new kinematical model for the plastic
flow would be necessary. On the other hand, when the shear stress is large enough,
approximations (111), (112) and (135) do not hold near the rolls and around the neutral point,
and therefore a non-perturbative model for the shear structure is compelling to solve the
plastic stress field (see Appendix).
In a nutshell, the zero order theory that we have established using slipping friction with the
rolls along the full length of the roll gap is consistent with this assumption for all the range of
practical thickness reductions and rolling parameters, and only in the very high range a
sticking model could be necessary around the neutral point. Therefore, in practical mill
operation the model holds (at least for steel) and another explanation for the fall in pressure
and the rounding at the peak of the roll pressure distribution must be invoked. This argument
is more than enough to suggest that a suitable correction on the zero order plastic stress field
is compelling.

4.6.1 Perturbative Effects Coming from the Plastic Flow. First Order Theory
Coming back to the differential equations of internal equilibrium (102) and (103) in the roll
gap, we have:
∂σ ηη 2σ C sin ξ ⎛ sinh η ⎞
− ⎡⎣1 − Ψ (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ⎜ ⎟
∂η 3 sin 2 ξ + Ψ 2 (ξ ) sinh 2 η ⎝ cosh η − cos ξ ⎠
(145)
2
− 3
sinh η = 0
3 ⎡⎣sin ξ + Ψ (ξ ) sinh η ⎤⎦
2 2 2 2
2σ C sin ξ ⎛ sinh η ⎞
σ ηη (ξ ,η ) = ∫ ⎡⎣1 − Ψ (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ⎜ ⎟dη +
3 sin 2 ξ + Ψ 2 (ξ ) sinh 2 η ⎝ cosh η − cos ξ ⎠
(146)
2
∫ 3
sinh η dη + g (ξ )
3 ⎡⎣sin ξ + Ψ (ξ ) sinh η ⎤⎦
2 2 2 2
2σ C
σ ηη (ξ ,η ) ≅ − ⎡⎣1 − Ψ (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ln ( cosh η − cos ξ ) +
3
(147)
σ C ⎡ ( Ψ ′ (ξ ) sin ξ − Ψ (ξ ) sin ξ cos ξ ) ⎤ ⎛⎜ ⎞
2
cosh η ⎟ + g (ξ )
⎢ ⎥
3 ⎢⎣ ( sin ξ − Ψ (ξ ) )
2 2
⎥⎦ ⎜⎝ sin ξ + Ψ 2 (ξ ) sinh 2 η
2 ⎟
⎠
Using equation (95), we get:
2σ C sin ξ 2σ C
σ ξξ (ξ ,η ) = − − ⎡⎣1 − Ψ (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ln ( cosh η − cos ξ ) +
2 2 2
3
(148)
σ C ⎡ ( Ψ′ (ξ ) sin ξ − Ψ (ξ ) sin ξ cos ξ ) ⎤ ⎛⎜ ⎞
2
cosh η ⎟ + g (ξ )
⎢ ⎥
3 ⎢⎣ ( sin ξ − Ψ (ξ ) )
2 2
⎥⎦ ⎜⎝ sin 2 ξ + Ψ 2 (ξ ) sinh 2 η ⎟
⎠
With equation (107) we seek for a self-consistent solution:
⎡ 2σ C sin ξ 2σ ⎤
⎢− 3 − C ⎡⎣1 − Ψ (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ln ( cosh η − cos ξ ) + ⎥
sin 2 ξ + Ψ 2 (ξ ) sinh 2 η 3
∂ ⎢ ⎥
g ′ (ξ ) + ⎢ ⎥
∂ξ ⎢ σ C ⎡ ( Ψ ′ (ξ ) sin 2 ξ − Ψ (ξ ) sin ξ cos ξ ) ⎤ ⎛ cosh η ⎞ ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥
⎣⎢
3 ⎣⎢ ( sin 2
ξ − Ψ 2
( ξ ) ) ⎥⎦ ⎝ sin ξ + Ψ (ξ ) sinh η ⎠⎟ ⎥
⎜ 2 2 2
⎦ (149)
2σ ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ σ C Ψ (ξ )
− C⎜ ⎟+ =0
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 3 sin ξ

28 G. Echave
⎡ 2σ C 2σ C ⎤
⎢ 3 − 3 ⎡⎣1 − Ψ (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ln (1 − cos ξ ) + ⎥
∂ ⎢ ⎥ − 2σ C ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ σ C Ψ (ξ )
g ′ (ξ ) + ⎟+ =0 (150)
∂ξ ⎢ σ C ( Ψ ′ (ξ ) sin ξ − Ψ (ξ ) cos ξ ) ⎥ ⎜
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 3 sin ξ
⎢− ⎥
⎢⎣ 3 ( sin ξ − Ψ (ξ ) )
2 2
⎥⎦
⎡ 2σ C 2σ C ⎤
⎢ 3 − 3 ⎡⎣1 − Ψ (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ln (1 − cos ξ ) ⎥
g (ξ ) = − ⎢ ⎥ + 2σ C ln 1 − cos ξ − σ C Ψ (ξ )d ξ
⎢ σ C ( Ψ ′ (ξ ) sin ξ − Ψ (ξ ) cos ξ ) ⎥ ( ) ∫ (151)
3 3 sin ξ
⎢− ⎥
⎢⎣ 3 ( sin 2 ξ − Ψ 2 (ξ ) ) ⎥⎦
Making the Taylor expansion in equation (148) up to second order and using (151), we have
for the stress field:
2σ C sin ξ 2σ C
σ ξξ (ξ ,η ) = − −
2 2 2
3
2σ C 2σ
− ⎡⎣1 − Ψ (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ln ( cosh η − cos ξ ) + C ⎡⎣1 − Ψ (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ln (1 − cos ξ ) (152)
3 3
σ ⎡ Ψ′ (ξ ) sin ξ − Ψ (ξ ) cos ξ ⎤ ⎛ η ⎞ 2σ C
2
σ Ψ (ξ )
− C⎢ ⎥⎜ ⎟+ ln (1 − cos ξ ) − C ∫ dξ
3⎣ sin ξ 2
⎦⎝ 2 ⎠ 3 3 sin ξ
σ Ψ (ξ ) 2σ ⎡ Ψ (ξ ) ⎤ ⎛ η 2 ⎞
2
2σ C
σ ξξ (ξ ,η ) = ln (1 − cos ξ ) − C ∫ dξ − C ⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟
3 3 sin ξ 3 ⎣ sin ξ ⎦ ⎝ 2 ⎠
(153)
σ ⎡1 − Ψ (ξ ) ⎤ 2 σ C ⎡ Ψ ′ (ξ ) sin ξ − Ψ (ξ ) cos ξ ⎤ 2
− C⎢ ⎥η − ⎢ ⎥η
3 ⎣ 1 − cos ξ ⎦ 2 3⎣ sin 2 ξ ⎦
This is the first order perturbative correction to the zero order theory coming from the self-
consistency condition of the plastic stress field.
Considering also the main disturbing terms from equations (105) and (106), we have:
σ Ψ (ξ ) σ ⎡ Ψ (ξ ) ⎤ 2 σ C ⎛ Ψ (ξ ) ⎞ 2
2
2σ C
σ ξξ (ξ ,η ) = ln (1 − cos ξ ) − C ∫ dξ − C ⎢ ⎥ η + ⎜ ⎟η
3 3 sin ξ 3 ⎣ sin ξ ⎦ 3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠
σ C ⎡ Ψ ′ (ξ ) sin ξ − Ψ (ξ ) cos ξ ⎤ 2 σ C Ψ (ξ ) ⎛ 3 + cos ξ ⎞
− ⎥η + ∫ ⎟ d ξη
2
⎢ ⎜ (154)
2 3⎣ sin ξ
2
⎦ 2 3 sin ξ ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠
σ ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ ⎡ Ψ (ξ ) ⎤ 3σ C ⎡ Ψ (ξ ) ⎤
2 3
− C ∫⎜ ⎥ d ξη + ∫ ⎥ d ξη + h (η )
2 2
⎟⎢ ⎢
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ ⎣ sin ξ ⎦ 2 3 ⎣ sin ξ ⎦
Expressing this equation as function of the shear structure, we get finally:

2σ C σC σC σC ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ 2
σ ξξ (ξ ,η ) = ln (1 − cos ξ ) − H (ξ ) − H ′ 2 ( ξ )η 2 + H ′ (ξ ) ⎜ ⎟η
3 3 3 3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠
σC σC ⎛ 3 + cos ξ ⎞
H ′′ (ξ )η 2 + H ′ (ξ ) ⎜
3∫
− ⎟ dξη
2
(155)
2 3 2 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠
σC ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ 3σ C
− ∫ H ′ (ξ ) ⎜
2
⎟ dξη
2
+ ∫ H ′ (ξ )dξη
3 2
+ h (η )
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 2 3
The first order plastic stress field is parabolic in the bipolar coordinate η .
To calculate the function h (η ) , we have to apply the boundary condition of back push at the
roll gap entrance.
σ ξξ (ξ = ξ 0 ,η ) = σ 1 (156)
σC σ
σ ξξ(1) (ξ ,η ) = σ ξξ( 0) (ξ , ξ 0 ) − ⎡ H ′2 (ξ ) − H ′2 (ξ 0 ) ⎦⎤ η 2 − C ⎡⎣ H ′′ (ξ ) − H ′′ (ξ 0 ) ⎤⎦ η 2
⎣
3 2 3
σC ⎡ ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ ⎛ sin ξ 0 ⎞ ⎤ 2
+ ⎢ H ′ (ξ ) ⎜ ⎟ − H ′ (ξ 0 ) ⎜ ⎟⎥η (157)
3⎣ ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ ⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ ⎦
σC
+ ⎡⎣ I (ξ , ξ 0 ) − 2 J (ξ , ξ 0 ) + 3K (ξ , ξ 0 ) ⎤⎦ η 2
2 3
ξ ⎛ 3 + cos ξ ⎞
I (ξ , ξ 0 ) = ∫ H ′ (ξ ) ⎜ ⎟dξ (158)
ξ0
⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠
ξ ⎛ sin ξ ⎞
J ( ξ , ξ 0 ) = ∫ H ′2 ( ξ ) ⎜ ⎟ dξ (159)
ξ0
⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠
ξ
K (ξ , ξ 0 ) = ∫ H ′3 (ξ ) d ξ (160)
ξ0
In the middle plane of the strip η = 0 , we have:
σ ξξ(1)[ηη ] (ξ , 0 ) = σ ξξ( 0[)ηη ] (ξ , ξ 0 ) ≤ σ ξξ(1)[ηη ] (ξ ,η0 ) (161)
In the same manner, using the boundary condition of front pull at the roll gap exit, we have:
σC σ
σ ξξ(1) (ξ ,η ) = σ ξξ( 0) (ξ , π ) − ⎡ H ′2 (ξ ) − H ′2 (π ) ⎦⎤ η 2 − C ⎡⎣ H ′′ (ξ ) − H ′′ (π ) ⎤⎦ η 2
3⎣ 2 3
(162)
σC ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ 2 σC
+ H ′ (ξ ) ⎜ ⎟η + ⎡⎣ I (ξ , π ) − 2 J (ξ , π ) + 3K (ξ , π ) ⎤⎦ η 2
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 2 3

30 G. Echave
ξ ⎛ 3 + cos ξ ⎞
I (ξ , π ) = ∫ H ′ (ξ ) ⎜ ⎟d ξ (163)
π
⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠
ξ ⎛ sin ξ ⎞
J ( ξ , π ) = ∫ H ′2 ( ξ ) ⎜ ⎟ dξ (164)
π
⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠
ξ
K (ξ , π ) = ∫ H ′3 (ξ ) d ξ (165)
π
In the middle plane of the strip η = 0 , we have:
σ ξξ(1)[ηη ] (ξ , 0 ) = σ ξξ( 0[)ηη ] (ξ , π ) ≤ σ ξξ(1)[ηη ] (ξ ,η0 ) (166)
The equation for the new position of the neutral point will be:
⎧ 2 ⎛ sin ξ 0 ⎞ 1 ⎫
⎪ H ′ (ξ0 ) − H ′ (ξ0 ) ⎜ ⎟ + ⎣⎡ H ′′ (ξ 0 ) − H ′′ (ξ N ) + H ′′ (ξ N ) ⎦⎤ ⎪
1+ 1−
⎝ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎠ 2
( 0)
σ ηη (ξ N1 , ξ0 ) + σ C3 ⎪⎨ ⎪ 2
⎬η
⎛ ξ 1
⎞ 1
⎪ ( N ) ⎜ 1 − cosNξ 1 ⎟ + 2 ⎡⎣ I (ξ N1 , ξ0 ) − 2 J (ξ N1 , ξ0 ) + 3K (ξ N1 , ξ0 )⎤⎦ ⎪⎪
⎪+2 H ′ ξ 1+ sin
⎩ ⎝ N ⎠ ⎭
= σ ηη ( 0)
(ξ N1 , π ) + σ C3 ⎨⎩⎧ H ′2 (π ) + 12 H ′′ (π ) + 12 ⎡⎣ I (ξ N1 , π ) − 2 J (ξ N1 , π ) + 3K (ξ N1 , π )⎤⎦ ⎬⎭⎫η 2 (167)
Ignoring irrelevant disturbing terms, we have:
σC σC ⎡ 1
( 0)
σ ηη (ξ N1 , ξ0 ) + 3
H ′2 ( ξ 0 )η 2 +
2 3 ⎣ I ( ξ N , ξ 0 ) − 2 J ( ξ N , ξ 0 ) + 3K ( ξ N , ξ 0 ) ⎦ η ≅
1 1
⎤ 2
(168)
σC σ
σ ηη (ξ , π ) +
( 0) 1
N H ′ (π )η + C ⎡⎣ I (ξ N1 , π ) − 2 J (ξ N1 , π ) + 3K (ξ N1 , π ) ⎤⎦ η 2
2 2
3 2 3
The following condition fulfils in the usual range of reductions and rolling parameters:
1
⎡ I (ξ N1 , ξ 0 ) − 2 J (ξ N1 , ξ 0 ) + 3K (ξ N1 , ξ 0 ) ⎤ η02 ≅
4⎣ ⎦
( 0) (169)
1 σ ηη
⎡ I (ξ N1 , π ) − 2 J (ξ N1 , π ) + 3K (ξ N1 , π ) ⎤ η02 − (ξ )
0
4⎣ ⎦ N
2k
Therefore, ignoring the offset in pressure in both branches, the new position of the neutral
point stands approximately unaltered:
( 0)
σ ηη (ξ N1 , ξ0 ) ≅ σηη(0) (ξ N1 , π ) ⇒ ξ N1 ≅ ξ N0 (170)
The first fall in pressure due to the coupling of the plastic stress field with the flow structure

comes from the following term:
σC
δσ ξξ(1,1[ηη
)
]= ⎡⎣ I (ξ , π ) − 2 J (ξ , π ) + 3K (ξ , π ) ⎤⎦ η 2 ∀ξ ∈ [π , ξ N ] (171)
2 3
The conditions for the shear structure on this branch are:
H ′ (ξ ) > 0 H ′′ (ξ ) > 0 ∀ξ ∈ [π , ξ N ] (172)
Therefore, from equations (163), (164) and (165) we have:
I (ξ , π ) ≥ 0 J (ξ , π ) ≤ 0 K (ξ , π ) ≥ 0 ∀ξ ∈ [π , ξ N ] (173)
Finally, we have for this term:
σC
δσ ξξ(1,1[ηη
)
]= ⎡⎣ I (ξ , π ) − 2 J (ξ , π ) + 3K (ξ , π ) ⎤⎦ η 2 ≥ 0 (174)
2 3
From the roll gap entrance to the neutral point, we have a similar fall in pressure:
σC
δσ ξξ(1,2[ηη) ] = ⎡⎣ I (ξ , ξ 0 ) − 2 J (ξ , ξ 0 ) + 3K (ξ , ξ 0 ) ⎤⎦ η 2 ∀ξ ∈ [ξ N , ξ 0 ] (175)
2 3
The conditions for the shear structure on this second branch are:
H ′ (ξ ) < 0 H ′′ (ξ ) > 0 ∀ξ ∈ [ξ N , ξ 0 ] (176)
Therefore, from equations (158), (159) and (160) we have:
I (ξ , ξ 0 ) ≥ 0 J (ξ , ξ 0 ) ≥ 0 K (ξ , ξ0 ) ≥ 0 ∀ξ ∈ [ξ N , ξ 0 ] (177)
To prove that there is a fall in pressure, we have:
δσ ξξ(1,2[ηη) ] (ξ 0 ,η ) = 0 (178)
Therefore, the derivative of equation (175) must be negative for the function to be strictly
decreasing and positive.
d σ ⎡⎛ 3 + cos ξ ⎞ ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ ⎤ 2
δσ ξξ(1,2[ηη) ] = C H ′ (ξ ) ⎢⎜ ⎟ − 2 H ′ (ξ ) ⎜ ⎟ + 3H ′ ( ξ ) ⎥ η ≤ 0
2
(179)
dξ 2 3 ⎣⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ ⎦
⎛ 3 + cos ξ ⎞ ⎛ sin ξ ⎞
Δ (ξ ) = ⎜ ⎟ − 2 H ′ (ξ ) ⎜ ⎟ + 3H ′ ( ξ )
2
(180)
⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠

32 G. Echave
A lower bound strictly positive of this expression for reductions up to 90% is:
Δ (ξ ) ≥ 3 + 2 r (1 − r ) H ′ (ξ ) + 3H ′2 (ξ ) ≅ 3 + 6 H ′ (ξ ) + 3H ′2 (ξ ) ≥ 0 ∀H ′ (ξ ) ∈ ( −∞, ∞ ) (181)
Therefore, according to equation (179) the sign of the derivative only depends on the shear
structure, and is negative from the roll gap entrance to the neutral point. For the same reason
it must be positive on the other branch of the pressure profile in agreement with the direct
result of equation (174).
The integral terms (171) and (175) predict a general fall in pressure, which increases from the
roll gap ends to the neutral point.
The remaining fall in pressure is more localized and comes from the following term:
σC
δσ ξξ(1,3[ηη) ] (ξ ,η ) = − H ′′ (ξ )η 2 (182)
2 3
The expressions for the shear structure and its derivative from the roll gap entrance to the
neutral point are:
⎧ ⎡⎛ σ ⎞ ⎤ −ϑ ξ −ξ ⎫
H ′ (ξ , ξ 0 ) = 2ϑ ⎨ ⎢⎜ 1 ⎟ − 1 − ln (1 − cos ξ 0 ) ⎥ e ( 0 ) + ln (1 − cos ξ ) ⎬
⎩ ⎣⎝ 2 k ⎠ ⎦ ⎭ (183)
ξ
−2ϑ e−ϑξ ∫ξ ϑ e
ϑξ
ln (1 − cos ξ ) dξ
0
⎧ ⎡⎛ σ ⎞ ⎤ −ϑ (ξ −ξ0 ) ⎫
H ′′ (ξ , ξ 0 ) = −2ϑ 2 ⎨ ⎢⎜ 1 ⎟ − 1 − ln (1 − cos ξ 0 ) ⎥ e + ln (1 − cos ξ ) ⎬
⎩ ⎣⎝ 2k ⎠ ⎦ ⎭ (184)
⎛ sin ξ ⎞ ξ
+2ϑ ⎜ 2 −ϑξ
⎟ + 2ϑ e ∫ξ ϑ e
ϑξ
ln (1 − cos ξ ) d ξ
⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 0
From the roll gap exit to the neutral point their expressions are in the same manner:
⎧ ⎡⎛ σ ⎞ ⎤ ϑ ξ −π ⎫
H ′ (ξ , π ) = −2ϑ ⎨ ⎢⎜ 2 ⎟ − 1 − ln 2 ⎥ e ( ) + ln (1 − cos ξ ) ⎬
⎩ ⎣⎝ 2 k ⎠ ⎦ ⎭ (185)
ξ
−2ϑ eϑξ ∫π ϑ e
−ϑξ
ln (1 − cos ξ ) dξ
⎧ ⎡⎛ σ ⎞ ⎤ ϑ ξ −π ⎫
H ′′ (ξ , π ) = −2ϑ 2 ⎨ ⎢⎜ 2 ⎟ − 1 − ln 2 ⎥ e ( ) + ln (1 − cos ξ ) ⎬
⎩ ⎣⎝ 2 k ⎠ ⎦ ⎭ (186)
⎛ sin ξ ⎞ ξ
−2ϑ ⎜ ⎟ − 2ϑ 2 eϑξ ∫π ϑ e
−ϑξ
ln (1 − cos ξ ) d ξ
⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠
Therefore, at the neutral surface we have the following behavior in the limit:

lim H ′′ (ξ ) ≠ lim+ H ′′ (ξ ) > 0 H ′ (ξ N+ , ξ 0 ) < 0 H ′ (ξ N− , π ) > 0 (187)

ξ →ξ N− ξ →ξ N
The term predicts a perturbative raise in pressure at the neutral surface when using the zero
order plastic stress field. Nevertheless, the corrected shear structure (Echave G 2011) is
smooth, and there is also the rounding at the peak of the roll pressure profile. Therefore, in a
narrow zone around the neutral point the derivative of the corrected shear structure has to be
very large and negative and the model predicts a localized fall in pressure.
Using the zero order shear stress, we have:
H ′′ (ξ N ) = −∞ (188)
The entire neutral surface ξ = ξ N except the line η = 0 is working at negative pressure or
suction. The application of front and back tensions, favors the appearance of the suction.
The stress tensor at the neutral surface will have in this case the following components:
σC
σ ξξ(1) (ξ N ,η ) ≅ σ ηη
(1)
(ξ N ,η ) ≅ − H ′′ (ξ N )η 2 0 (189)
2 3
1 σ
σ zz(1) (ξ N ,η ) = ⎣⎡σ ξξ(1) (ξ N ,η ) + σ ηη
(1)
(ξ N ,η ) ⎤⎦ ≅ − C H ′′ (ξ N )η 2 0 (190)
2 2 3
(1)
σ ξη (ξ N ,η ) = σ ξη( 0) (ξ N ,η ) = 0 (191)
According to these equations, the stress state is approximately hydrostatic. The bigger the
absolute value of H ′′ (ξ N ) , the more hydrostatic the stress state. Because hydrostatic stresses
cannot produce plastic flow, this fully degenerate stress state belongs to the ideal limiting case
(188), and therefore a possible non-plastic transition around the neutral surface could explain
the fall and the rounding at the peak of the roll pressure distribution.
Negative pressure at the middle plane of the material has been reported in previous works on
cold flat rolling (Ch’ien WZ and Ch’en CT 1952) and our simple analytical model for the
plastic flow begins to shed light on the matter. First order corrections to a zero order theory
must be taken into account to explain this weird phenomenon.
The two branches of the roll pressure profile predicted by the first order theory (Figure 9) are
given, ignoring irrelevant disturbing terms, by the following equations:
σC σC
(1)
σ ηη (ξ ,η0 ) ≅ σηη( 0) (ξ , π ) + H ′2 (π )η02 + ⎡⎣ I (ξ , π ) − 2 J (ξ , π ) + 3K (ξ , π ) ⎤⎦ η02 (192)
3 2 3
σC σC
(1)
σ ηη (ξ ,η0 ) ≅ σ ηη(0) (ξ , ξ0 ) + H ′2 (ξ 0 )η02 + ⎡⎣ I (ξ , ξ 0 ) − 2 J (ξ , ξ 0 ) + 3K (ξ , ξ 0 ) ⎤⎦ η02 (193)
3 2 3

34 G. Echave
Figure 9: Roll pressure profile. First Order Theory & Zero Order Theory.
The perturbative first order theory can eventually be used to calculate the fall in pressure in a
parametric correction of the zero order plastic stress field. The simplest correction is a two-
piece four parametric correction with offset in which the fall in pressure at the neutral point
can be estimated, ignoring irrelevant disturbing terms, using the following equation:
δσ ηη ⎧ ⎡ I (ξ N , π ) − 2 J (ξ N , π ) + 3K (ξ N , π ) ⎦⎤ +
η02 ⎪⎣ ⎫⎪
(ξ N ,η0 ) ≅ ⎨ ⎬ (194)
2k 8 ⎪ ⎡⎣ I (ξ N , ξ 0 ) − 2 J (ξ N , ξ 0 ) + 3K (ξ N , ξ 0 ) ⎤⎦ − 2 H ′′ (ξ N ) ⎪
⎩ ⎭
Where we have used the fact that the corrected shear structure at the neutral surface must be
null and its derivative cannot be ignored in this case because it is the main contribution to the
fall in pressure around the neutral surface due to the non-plastic transition.
The correction is carried out on the zero order plastic stress field with the offset in pressure
coming from equations (192) and (193), and the position of the neutral point calculated with
(195) is kept unaltered during the correction to agree with the result of the first order theory.
σC σC
( 0)
σ ηη (ξ N , π ) + H ′2 (π )η02 = σ ηη
( 0)
(ξ N , ξ 0 ) + H ′2 (ξ 0 )η02 (195)
3 3
There is a complete calculation of the corrected zero order plastic stress field in (Echave G
2011).

4.7 Zero Order Plastic Stress Field with Strain Hardening
Due to the counterbalance of strain hardening and thermal softening of the quasi-adiabatic
regime in the roll gap, the rigid perfectly plastic model can be accurate enough to explain the
roll pressure distribution in cold flat rolling. Nevertheless, for some materials, strain
hardening cannot be ignored and therefore it will be considered in the usual manner disturbing
the rigid perfectly plastic solution.
Ignoring the functional dependence of the hardening rule on the bipolar coordinate η and to
fulfil the Von Mises criterion, we must have:
σC
σ ξη = H ′ (ξ ) {1 + f (ξ )}η (196)
3
2σ C
σ ξξ − σ ηη = {1 + f (ξ )} (197)
3
σ C (ξ ) = σ C {1 + f (ξ )} (198)
Therefore, because self-consistency is applied on the η coordinate, and the only functional
dependence of the hardening rule is on the ξ coordinate, there is no limitation to the rule
coming from the fulfilment of the equations of internal equilibrium.
Equation (107) using (198) for the dynamic yield stands as follows:
∂σ ξξ 2σ C ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ σC
− ⎜ ⎟ {1 + f (ξ )} + H ′ (ξ ) {1 + f (ξ )} = 0 (199)
∂ξ 3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 3
Integrating by parts and using the boundary condition of back push, we have:
2σ C ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ σC
σ ξξ (ξ ) = ∫ ⎟ {1 + f (ξ )} d ξ − H ′ (ξ ) {1 + f (ξ )} d ξ + C
3∫
⎜ (200)
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠
2σ C 2σ C
σ ξξ (ξ ) = σ 1 + {1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) − {1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ )
0 0
3 3
(201)
σC ξ 2σ C ξ
− ∫ξ H ′ (ξ ) {1 + f (ξ )}d ξ − ∫ξ ln (1 − cos ξ ) f ′ (ξ ) dξ
3 0 3 0
To get the shear structure we apply the Coulomb friction condition (116) with the rolls:
⎡ 2 {1 + f (ξ )} ⎡⎣ ln (1 − cos ξ ) − 1⎤⎦ − 2 {1 + f (ξ 0 )} ln (1 − cos ξ 0 ) ⎤

⎛ μ ⎞⎢ ⎥
H ′ (ξ ) {1 + f (ξ )} = ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ σ ξ ξ ⎥
(202)
⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎢ + − ∫ξ H ′ (ξ ) {1 + f (ξ )}d ξ − 2 ∫ξ ln (1 − cos ξ ) f ′ (ξ ) d ξ ⎥
1
⎣ k 0 0 ⎦

36 G. Echave
⎡σ1 ⎤
⎛ μ ⎞ ⎢ k + 2 {1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) − 2 {1 + f (ξ 0 )} ln (1 − cos ξ 0 ) ⎥
Ω′ ( ξ ) = ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ (203)
⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎢ −2 {1 + f (ξ )} − ⎡Ω (ξ ) − Ω (ξ ) ⎤ − 2 ξ ln (1 − cos ξ ) f ′ (ξ ) d ξ ⎥
⎣ ⎣ 0 ⎦ ∫ξ0 ⎦
⎡{1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) − {1 + f (ξ 0 )} ln (1 − cos ξ 0 ) ⎤

⎛μ⎞ ⎛ μ ⎞⎢ ⎥
F ′ (ξ ) + ⎜ ⎟ F (ξ ) − 2 ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎛ σ ⎞ ξ ⎥=0 (204)
⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎢ + ⎜ ⎟ − {1 + f (ξ )} − ∫ξ ln (1 − cos ξ ) f ′ (ξ ) d ξ ⎥
1
⎣ ⎝ 2k ⎠ 0
⎦
⎧⎛ σ 1 ⎞ ξ ⎫
⎪⎜ 2k ⎟ − {1 + f (ξ )} − ∫ξ0 ln (1 − cos ξ ) f ′ (ξ ) d ξ
⎛ μ⎞ ⎛ μ⎞
⎟ξ
−⎜⎜ ⎟
⎝ η0 ⎠
ξ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎜⎜⎝ η0 ⎟⎟⎠ξ ⎪
F (ξ ) = 2 e ∫ξ0 ⎜⎝ η0 ⎟⎠ e ⎨⎝ ⎠ ⎬ d ξ (205)
⎪{1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) − {1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) ⎪
⎩ 0 0 ⎭
⎪⎧ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ ⎫⎪ ⎧⎛ σ ⎞ ⎫
F (ξ ) = 2 ⎨1 − exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ (ξ − ξ 0 ) ⎥ ⎬ ⎨⎜ 1 ⎟ − 1 − {1 + f (ξ 0 )} ln (1 − cos ξ 0 ) ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎪⎭ ⎩⎝ 2k ⎠ ⎭
ξ
−2 ∫ ln (1 − cos ξ ) f ′ (ξ ) d ξ (206)
ξ0
⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ ξ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎡⎣{1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) − f (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ⎥
+2 exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ⎢⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎥ dξ
⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ 0 ⎣⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎢ + ln 1 − cos ξ f ′ ξ
ξ
( ) ( ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Coming back to equation (201), we obtain the first branch of the stress field.
⎛ σ ξξ ⎞ ⎡⎛ σ 1 ⎞ ⎤ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤
⎜ ⎟ (ξ , ξ 0 ) = ⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1 − {1 + f (ξ 0 )} ln (1 − cos ξ 0 ) ⎥ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ (ξ − ξ 0 ) ⎥
⎝ 2k ⎠ ⎣⎝ 2 k ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦
+1 + {1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ )
⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ ξ⎛μ⎞ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
− exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) d ξ (207)
⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ 0 ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦
ξ
⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ ξ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
− exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ⎢⎜ ⎟ f (ξ ) + f ′ (ξ ) ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) dξ
⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ 0 ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠
ξ
⎦
⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ ξ⎛μ⎞ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
+ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ f (ξ ) dξ
⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦ 0 ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦
ξ
The expression for the shear stress using (196) will be:
⎛ σ ξη ⎞ 1
⎜ ⎟ (ξ ,η ) = F ′ (ξ )η (208)
⎝ 2k ⎠ 2

⎛ σ ξη ⎞ ⎛ η ⎞ ⎡⎛ σ 1 ⎞ ⎤ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤
⎜ ⎟ = μ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1 − {1 + f (ξ 0 )} ln (1 − cos ξ 0 ) ⎥ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ (ξ − ξ 0 ) ⎥
⎝ 2k ⎠ ⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎣⎝ 2 k ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦
⎛η ⎞
+ μ ⎜ ⎟ ⎡⎣{1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) − f (ξ ) ⎤⎦ (209)
⎝ η0 ⎠
⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎡{1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) ⎤ ⎤
⎛η ⎞ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤ ξ ⎡ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥⎥
− μ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ⎢⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎣ − f ( ξ ) ⎦ ⎥ dξ
η
⎝ 0⎠ η
⎣ ⎝ 0⎠ ⎦
ξ 0 η
⎣⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ + ln (1 − cos ξ ) f ′ ( ξ ) ⎦
Using the Coulomb friction condition from the neutral point to the roll gap exit (120) we get
the differential equation for the corresponding shear structure.
⎡σ 2 ⎤
⎛μ⎞ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎢ k + 2 {1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) − 2 {1 + f (π )} ln 2 ⎥
F ′ (ξ ) − ⎜ ⎟ F (ξ ) + ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥=0 (210)
⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎢ −2 {1 + f (ξ )} − 2 ξ ln (1 − cos ξ ) f ′ (ξ ) d ξ ⎥
⎣ ∫π ⎦
⎛ μ ⎞ ⎧⎛ σ 2 ⎞ ξ ⎫
μ ⎞ −⎜⎜⎝ η0 ⎟⎟⎠ξ ⎪⎜ 2k ⎟ − {1 + f (ξ )} − ∫π ln (1 − cos ξ ) f ′ (ξ ) d ξ ⎪
⎛ μ ⎞
⎜ ⎟ξ ξ⎛
⎜η ⎟
F ( ξ ) = −2 e ⎝ 0⎠
∫π ⎜⎝ η0 ⎟⎠ e ⎨⎝ ⎠ ⎬ dξ (211)
⎪{1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) − {1 + f (π )} ln 2 ⎪
⎩ ⎭
Integrating by parts, we get finally the second branch of the plastic stress field.
⎧⎪ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ⎫⎪ ⎧⎛ σ ⎞ ⎫ ξ
F (ξ ) = 2 ⎨1 − exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ (ξ − π ) ⎥ ⎬ ⎨⎜ 2 ⎟ − 1 − {1 + f (π )} ln 2 ⎬ − 2 ∫ ln (1 − cos ξ ) f ′ (ξ ) d ξ
⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠
π
⎩⎪ ⎦ ⎭⎪ ⎩⎝ 2k ⎠ ⎭
⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ξ ⎡ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎡⎣{1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) − f (ξ ) ⎤⎦ ⎥
−2 exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ⎢⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎥ dξ (212)
⎣ ⎝ η ⎠ ⎦
π
⎣ ⎝ η ⎠ ⎦ ⎢ − ln 1 − cos ξ f ′ ξ ⎥
( ) ( )
0 0
⎣ ⎦
⎛ σ ξξ ⎞ ⎡⎛ σ 2 ⎞ ⎤ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
⎜ ⎟ (ξ , π ) = ⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1 − {1 + f (π )} ln 2 ⎥ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ (ξ − π ) ⎥
⎝ 2k ⎠ ⎣⎝ 2k ⎠ ⎦ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦
+1 + {1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ )
⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ξ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤
+ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) d ξ (213)
⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦
π
⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ξ ⎡ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
+ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ⎢⎜ ⎟ f (ξ ) − f ′ (ξ ) ⎥ ln (1 − cos ξ ) d ξ
⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠
π
⎦
⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ξ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎡ ⎛μ⎞ ⎤
− exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ f (ξ ) d ξ
⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎦
π

38 G. Echave
⎛ σ ξη ⎞ ⎛ η ⎞ ⎡⎛ σ 2 ⎞ ⎤ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤
⎜ ⎟ = − μ ⎜ ⎟ ⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1 − {1 + f (π )} ln 2 ⎥ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ (ξ − π ) ⎥
⎝ 2k ⎠ ⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎣⎝ 2 k ⎠ ⎦ ⎣⎝ η 0 ⎠ ⎦
⎛η ⎞
− μ ⎜ ⎟ ⎣⎡{1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) − f (ξ ) ⎦⎤ (214)
⎝ η0 ⎠
⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎡{1 + f (ξ )} ln (1 − cos ξ ) ⎤ ⎤
⎛η ⎞ ⎡⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ξ ⎡ ⎛ μ ⎞ ⎤ ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥⎥
− μ ⎜ ⎟ exp ⎢⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ∫ exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ξ ⎥ ⎢⎝ η0 ⎠ ⎢⎣ − f (ξ ) ⎥⎦ ⎥ d ξ
⎝ η0 ⎠ η η
π
⎣ ⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ 0 ⎠ ⎦ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ − ln (1 − cos ξ ) f ′ (ξ ) ⎥⎦
To calculate the roll pressure distribution with strain hardening we will rely on equations
(207), (213) and (197).
Because there is plastic flow instead of deformation, we can establish the following isotropic
hardening rule for n ≥ 0 , ignoring the shear structure in the equivalent plastic strain rate.
n
⎡ 2 ⎛ v ⎞ ⎛ e ⎞ ⎛ cosh η − cos ξ ⎞ ⎤
σ C = BD ⇒ ( v ∇ ) σ C = B ⎢ ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎜
n
⎟ sin ξ + Ψ (ξ ) sinh η ⎥
2 2 2
(215)
⎣ 3 ⎝ a ⎠ ⎝ e2 ⎠ ⎝ cosh η + 1 ⎠ ⎦
n
⎡ ⎛ cosh η − cos ξ ⎞ ∂ ⎤ ⎡ 2 ⎛ v1 ⎞ ⎛ e1 ⎞ ⎛ cosh η − cos ξ ⎞ ⎤
⎟ ⎥σC = B ⎢ ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ sin ξ + Ψ sinh η ⎥
2 2 2
⎢ vξ ⎜ (216)
⎣ ⎝ a ⎠ ∂ξ ⎦ ⎣ 3 ⎝ a ⎠ ⎝ e2 ⎠ ⎝ cosh η + 1 ⎠ ⎦
n
⎛ e ⎞ (1 − cos ξ ) ∂σ C
2
⎡ 1 ⎛ v ⎞⎛ e ⎞ ⎤
−v1 ⎜ 1 ⎟ ≅ B ⎢ ⎜ 1 ⎟ ⎜ 1 ⎟ (1 − cos ξ )( − sin ξ ) ⎥ (217)
⎝ e2 ⎠ 2a ∂ξ ⎣ 3 ⎝ a ⎠ ⎝ e2 ⎠ ⎦
n −1 n −1
2B ⎛ v ⎞ ⎛ e1 ⎞
σ C (ξ ) = − n ⎜ 1 ⎟ ∫ (1 − cos ξ ) ( − sin ξ ) dξ + C = Aσ I ( n, ξ ) + C
n−2 n
⎜ ⎟ C (218)
⎝a⎠ ⎝ e2 ⎠
32
σ C (ξ 0 ) = σ C = Aσ C I ( n, ξ 0 ) + C ⇒ C = σ C {1 − AI ( n, ξ 0 )} (219)
σ C (ξ ) = σ C {1 + A ⎡⎣ I ( n, ξ ) − I ( n, ξ 0 ) ⎤⎦} ⇒ f (ξ ) = A∫ (1 − cos ξ )
ξ
( − sin ξ ) dξ
n−2 n
(220)
ξ0
n −1 ⎡ ⎤ n −1
2 B ⎡⎛ v1 ⎞ ⎛ e1 ⎞ ⎤ 2 ⎢ Θ ⎥ ⎛ v0 ⎞ ⎛ v1e1 ⎞
A(n) = − n ⎢⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ =− n h⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (221)
⎝ a ⎠ ⎝ e2 ⎠ ⎦ ⎢ n −1
2 σ (e R) 2
⎥ ⎝ v1 ⎠ ⎝ e2 ⎠
3 σC ⎣
2
3 ⎣⎢ C 2 ⎦⎥
Where Θ is a material constant and v0 is the threshold velocity of rolling for which thermal
softening counterbalance strain hardening exactly and therefore the rigid perfectly plastic
condition is established h (1) = 0 .

When the function h > 0 , strain hardening is greater than thermal softening and according to
(221) the hardening constant is negative. When h < 0 the opposite occurs. There is balance
when h = 0 and therefore the rigid perfectly plastic model is recovered.
The simplest rule is for n = 1 .
⎡ ⎛ 1 − cos ξ 0 ⎞ ⎤ ⎡ 3 P ⎤
σ C (ξ ) = σ C ⎢1 + A ln ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ = σ C ⎢1 − A ε (ξ ) ⎥ (222)
⎣ ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ 2 ⎦
2B 2 ⎛ Θ ⎞ ⎛ v0 ⎞
A ( n = 1) = − =− ⎜ ⎟h⎜ ⎟ (223)
3σ C 3 ⎝ σ C ⎠ ⎝ v1 ⎠
Other simple hardening models that can be considered are of the form:
(
σ C (ξ ) = σ C 1 + B ⎡⎣ε P (ξ ) ⎤⎦
n
) B≥0 n≥0 (224)
Figure 10 is the roll pressure distribution under strain hardening using equation (220) with
n = 1 and several values of A. There is a tendency of the neutral point to shift to the roll gap
exit as the value of the hardening constant A rises. If we use several values of the exponent n
with the same hardening rule for a fixed value of A (Figure 11), the neutral point barely
moves and the roll pressure distribution looses curvature the bigger the value of n.
Figure 12 is the famous experimental plot by Siebel and Lueg (Siebel E and Lueg W 1933) of
roll pressure distribution for cold flat rolling of annealed aluminium.
The error in the fulfilment of the Von Mises criterion according to equation (142) is:
εVM
max
( r = 0.5,ϑ = 1.3281,η0 = 0.1054 ) ⇒ εVM ≅ 5% εVM
max
≅ 45% (225)
Therefore, the zero order stress field with slipping friction is beyond the range of validity next
to the rolls and around the neutral point.
The green curve is the best fit using Orowan’s Theory with a combination of static and
slipping friction. Orange is the fit using the new zero order theory with a hardening model
like equation (224). In grey, we have the plot using the new theory and a two-piece hardening
law coming from (220), designed to produce an optimum fit of the roll pressure profile.
A = −2.2 n = 0.9 ξ S ≅ ξ ≤ ξ0 Strain Hard. > Thermal Soft. (226)

A=0 ξ S = 4.227 [φS = 3.6 ] π ≤ ξ ≅ ξS Rigid Perfectly Plastic.
The zero order plastic stresses with slipping friction produce a similar fit to Orowan’s Theory
considering also static friction. No hardening law is able to reproduce the right curvature of
the pressure distribution suggesting strongly that a non-perturbative model for the shear
structure (see Appendix) or a suitable correction on the zero order stress field are compelling.

40 G. Echave
Figure 10: Roll pressure distribution with strain hardening (Influence of A).
Figure 11: Roll pressure distribution with strain hardening (Influence of n).

Figure 12: Siebel & Lueg experimental roll pressure distribution.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The method above demonstrates the feasibility of a complete analytical solution in a practical
problem of plasticity like cold rolling of sheet and strip.
The kinematical model for the flow based on Bipolar Cylindrical Coordinates allows a self-
consistent solution for the plastic stress field in the roll gap using the cold flat rolling
approximation along with the Von Mises criterion and the Levy–Mises flow rule. Suitable
measures of strain and strain rate are also given based on these coordinates.
The self-consistent solution for the plastic stress field has one degree of freedom and therefore
is unfit to reproduce a problem with two degrees of freedom (front pull and back push) like
cold flat rolling. To attack a problem with two degrees of freedom we would need a second
order differential equation of equilibrium.
To solve cold flat rolling using the self-consistent stress field the problem must decompose
into two uncouple problems, a forward extrusion at the roll gap entrance using friction with
the rolls and a backward extrusion where friction with the rolls is opposed to the plastic flow.
Because we solve to uncouple problems from the two ends of the roll gap, there must be a C 0
point at which both solutions merge (neutral point) and therefore the present model like the
previous ones by Von Karman and Orowan cannot reproduce the rounding at the peak of the
roll pressure distribution.

42 G. Echave
The intrinsic point-like C 0 nature of the neutral point is due to the limitations of our present
analytical models and it is not necessary to introduce new constitutive or friction models.
The self-consistent stress field depends only on the ξ coordinate, and therefore the friction
model with the rolls allows a direct computation of this field. The Zero Order Theory is a
complete and isostatic solution conciliating under certain limitations velocity field, flow
structure, Von Mises criterion, Levy-Mises flow rule and plastic stress field.
The first order stresses calculated with the model are in agreement with the stress field used
by Orowan as starting point of his theory and coming from a problem solved by Prandt on a
compress metal between two rough parallel plates (Prandt L 1923).
The agreement between the model and the rigid perfectly plastic theory by Von Karman is
excellent, and therefore all the magnitudes derived from the plastic stress field such are the
torque and the total load on the rolls have to be the same (Hill R 1950).
Slipping friction is accurate enough to fit the roll pressure distribution in a consistent manner
if rolling is well lubricated and therefore sticking models seem not necessary at least for steel.
To introduce static friction, a new kinematical model for the plastic flow is compelling.
First order corrections coming from the flow structure to the zero order theory could explain
the possible existence of negative pressure regions at the neutral surface, due to a sudden
change in the shear stress distribution around the neutral point. The possible quasi-hydrostatic
stress state and the corresponding non-plastic transition around the neutral surface could also
be responsible of the rounding and the fall at the peak of the roll pressure distribution.
Strain hardening and thermal softening incorporate easily into the model and there is no
limitation to the hardening rule coming from the self-consistency condition of the plastic
stress field as long as the rule only depends on the ξ coordinate.
The best fit using the model of the curve by Siebel and Lueg for cold flat rolling of annealed
aluminium is similar to Orowan Theory. The limitations of the present analytical models lead
to the need of a non-perturbative model for the shear structure or a suitable correction on the
zero order stress field, using an integral equation relating the whole process in the roll gap.
After the previous papers on cold impact extrusion (Echave G 2010) and this paper on cold
flat rolling, the use of a suitable system of coordinates related to the geometrical symmetries
of the problem is compelling to get a minimum velocity field and a self-consistent solution for
the plastic stress field. We will call this system the Natural System of Coordinates.
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to Peter Gould (QinetiQ, Bristol) and to Dr. W.G. Proud
from Fracture and Shock Physics Group (Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge) for their support
in these series of papers on Applied Mathematics. I would like also to dedicate this paper to
my sister Nerea for her help in drawing the figures.

REFERENCES
Bland DR and Ford H (1948). Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 159, pp.189.
Ch’ien WZ and Ch’en CT (1952). Theory of Rolling. Acta Scientia Sinica. Vol. I, pp. 193-
229.
Echave G (2010). Analytical Model for Impact Cold Extrusion of Axially Symmetric Solid
Rods. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 6 (10), pp. 1-49.
Echave G (2011). Plastic Flow Structure in Cold Flat Rolling. International Journal of
Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 7 (10), pp. 51-70.
Echave G (2011). Stress Correction in Cold Flat Rolling. International Journal of Applied
Mathematics and Mechanics, 7 (10), pp. 71-96.
Hayes A and Burus RS (1937). The Cold Rolling of Mild steel sheet and Strip. Trans Amer.
Soc. of Metals 25, pp. 129.
Hill R (1950). The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity. Oxford University Press. First Edition.
Hitchcock JM (1930). ASME research publication.
Hughes WF and Gaylord EW (1964). Basic Equations of Engineering Science. Schaum

Publishing Company. First Edition.
Lueg W (1933). Distribution of Pressure and Flow of Material in the Surface of Material in
Contact with the Rolls. Stahl u. Eisen. Vol. 53, pp. 6.
Lueg W and Pomp A (1935). The Influence of Roll Diameter in the Cold Rolling of Strip
Steel. Mitt. K. W. Inst. Eisenf.,17, pp. 63-67.
Nadái A (1939). The Force required for Rolling of Steel Strip under Tension. Journal of
Applied Mechanics, pp. 4-54-A 62, ASME.
Orowan E (1943). The Calculation of Roll Pressure in Hot and Cold Flat Rolling. Proc. I.
Mech. E., 150 (4), pp. 140-167.
Pomp A and Lueg W (1935). Influence of the Rolls, Rolling Speed and With of Strip on the
Deformation of Cold Rolled Strip. Mitt. K. W. Inst. Eisenf.,17, pp. 219-230.
Prandt L (1923). Zeitschrft für Angewandte Mathematik and Mekanik, Vol 3, pp. 401.
Roberts WL (1978). Cold Rolling of Steel. Manufacturing Engineering and Material

Processing, 2. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.
Rudbakh V and Severdenko V (1936). Influence of External Friction on the Deformation of

Metal in Rolling. CNTIML.

44 G. Echave
Siebel E and Lueg W (1933). Mitt. K. W. Inst. Eisenf., 15, pp. 1-14.
Siebel E and Pomp A (1927). Mitt. K. W. Inst. Eisenf., 9, pp. 157.
Trinks W (1937). Blast furnace and steel plant, 25, pp. 617.
Tselikov AI (1939). Effect of External Friction and Tension on the Pressure of the Metal on
the Rolls in Rolling. Metallurgy, No 6, pp. 61-76.
Von Karman Th (1925). The Theory of Rolling. Z. ang. Math u. Mech, 5, 139-141.
Yamamoto H, Uchimura T and Yamada K (2002). Numerical Simulation of Friction

Coefficient and Surface Roughness in Cold Rolling of Steel Sheets. The Japan Society of
Mechanical Engineers. 68 – 670, pp. 1877 – 1882.
APPENDIX
Integral of the Roll Gap Area Ω2

dξ
I =∫ (A.1)
(1 − cos ξ )
2
4ieiξ d ξ 4dt 4itdt 4itdt

I =∫ =∫ = −∫ = −∫ (A.2)
(2 − e ) it ( 2 − t − t ) ( 2t − t − 1) ( t − 1)
iξ iξ − iξ 2 −1 2 2 4
ie −e 2
4itdt ⎡t 1 ⎤ ⎛4⎞ ⎡ t 1 ⎤
= 4i ⎢ ( t − 1) − ∫ ( t − 1) dt ⎥ = ⎜ ⎟ i ⎢
−3 −3
I = −∫ + 2⎥
(A.3)
( t − 1) ⎦ ⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎢⎣ ( t − 1) 2 ( t − 1) ⎥⎦
4 3
⎣3 3
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ eiξ
⎛4⎞ ⎢ e
iξ
1 ⎥ = ⎛⎜ 4 ⎞⎟ i 1⎤
I = ⎜ ⎟i + ⎢ iξ + ⎥ (A.4)
⎝ 3 ⎠ ⎢ ( e − 1) 2 ( e − 1) ⎥ ⎝ 3 ⎠ ( e − 1) ⎢⎣ ( e − 1) 2 ⎥⎦
iξ 3 iξ 2 iξ 2
⎣ ⎦
ξ −2 ξ −1
−i ⎞ ⎡ i ⎛ i 1⎤
ξ ξ ξ
⎛ 4 ⎞ −iξ ⎛ i 2 −i ⎞ 1 ⎡ −i ξ2 ⎛ ξ ⎞⎤
I = ⎜ ⎟ ie ⎜ e − e ⎟ ⎢ e ⎜ e − e 2 ⎟ + ⎥ =
2 2 2
⎢ −e − ie−iξ sin ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (A.5)
⎝3⎠ ⎠ ⎢⎣ ⎝ 2⎥ 3⎛ξ ⎞ ⎝ 2 ⎠⎦
⎝ ⎠ ⎦ 6sin ⎜ ⎟ ⎣
⎝2⎠
Re ⎡ ⎛ξ ⎞ ⎛ξ ⎞ ⎛ξ ⎞ ⎤
I= ⎢ − cos ⎜ ⎟ + i sin ⎜ ⎟ − sin ⎜ ⎟ ( i cos ξ + senξ ) ⎥ (A.6)
6sin (ξ 2 ) ⎣
3
⎝2⎠ ⎝2⎠ ⎝2⎠ ⎦
cos (ξ 2 ) ⎡ ⎛ ξ ⎞⎤ 1 ⎛ ξ ⎞ ⎡ 2 − cos ξ ⎤
I =− ⎢1 + 2sin 2 ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ = − cot ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ (A.7)
6sin (ξ 2 ) ⎣
3
⎝ 2 ⎠⎦ 3 ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎣ 1 − cos ξ ⎦

Average Strain Integral
r x ⎡ 3 − 2x ⎤
I =∫ ⎢ ⎥ dx Change of variable: x = sin 2 ϕ (A.8)
0 1 − x ⎣⎢ (1 − x )2 ⎦⎥
r ⎡ 3sin ϕ − 2sin ϕ ⎤ r ⎡1 + cos ϕ − 2 cos ϕ ⎤

2 4 2 4
I = ∫ 2⎢ ⎥ d ϕ = 2 ∫0 ⎢⎣ ⎥ dϕ (A.9)
0
⎣ cos 4 ϕ ⎦ cos 4 ϕ ⎦
r⎡ 1 1 ⎤ dϕ
+ 2 [ tan ϕ − 2ϕ ]
r
I = 2∫ ⎢ 4 + − 2 ⎥ d ϕ = 2 ∫ (A.10)
0 cos ϕ cos ϕ
2
cos 4 ϕ
⎣ ⎦ 0
r
r dϕ ⎡ x ⎤
I = 2∫ + 2⎢ − 2 arcsin x ⎥ (A.11)
0 cos ϕ
4
⎣ 1− x ⎦0
r dϕ ⎡ r ⎤
I = 2∫ + 2 ⎢ − 2 arcsin r ⎥ (A.12)
0 cos 4 ϕ ⎣ 1− r ⎦
dϕ dϕ itdt
∫ cos = 16 Re ∫ = 8 Re ∫ (A.13)
ϕ ( eiϕ + e−iϕ ) (1 + t )
4 4 4
tdt dt dt 1 1
∫ (1 + t ) 4
=∫
(1 + t )
3
−∫
(1 + t )
4
=−
2 (1 + t )
2
+
3 (1 + t )
3
(A.14)
dt −n ⎛ 1 ⎞ 1
∫ (1 + t )n = ∫ (1 + t ) dt = ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 1 − n ⎠ (1 + t )
n −1 (A.15)
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
dϕ i i ⎢− i i ⎥
∫ cos4 ϕ = 8 Re ⎢ − + 3⎥
= 8 Re + (A.16)
⎢⎣ 2 (1 + t ) 3 (1 + t ) ⎥⎦ ⎢ 2 1 + e −2iϕ
( ) ( ) ⎥
2 2 3
−2 iϕ
⎣ 3 1+ e ⎦
dϕ ⎡ i i ⎤ ⎡ ie 2iϕ ie3iϕ ⎤
∫ cos4 ϕ = 8 Re ⎢ − + 3⎥
⎢⎣ 2 (1 + t ) 3 (1 + t ) ⎥⎦
2
= Re ⎢ − +
⎣ cos ϕ 3cos ϕ ⎦
2 3 ⎥ (A.17)
dϕ ⎡ i i ⎤
∫ cos = Re ⎢ − ( cos 2ϕ + i sin 2ϕ ) + ( cos 3ϕ + i sin 3ϕ ) ⎥ (A.18)
4
ϕ ⎣ cos ϕ
2
3cos ϕ
3
⎦
dϕ ⎡ sin 2ϕ sin 3ϕ ⎤
∫ cos 4
=⎢ 2 −
ϕ ⎣ cos ϕ 3cos3 ϕ ⎥⎦
(A.19)

46 G. Echave
dϕ ⎡ x ieiϕ e 2iϕ ⎤
∫ cos4 ϕ ⎢ 1 − x
= ⎢ 2 + Re ⎥
3 (1 − x ) 1 − x ⎦⎥
(A.20)
⎣
dϕ ⎡ x i ( cos ϕ + i sin ϕ )( cos 2ϕ + i sin 2ϕ ) ⎤

∫ cos4 ϕ ⎢ 1 − x
= ⎢ 2 + Re
3 (1 − x ) 1 − x
⎥ (A.21)
⎣ ⎦⎥
dϕ ⎡ x 2 cos 2 ϕ sin ϕ + sin ϕ ( cos 2 ϕ − sin 2 ϕ ) ⎤

∫ cos4 ϕ = ⎢⎢ 2 1 − x − 3 (1 − x ) 1 − x
⎥
⎥
(A.22)
⎣ ⎦
dϕ ⎡ x (3 − 4x ) x ⎤
∫ cos4 ϕ = ⎢ 2 − ⎥ (A.23)
⎣ 1 − x 3 (1 − x ) 1 − x ⎦
⎡
I = 2 ⎢2
r
−
( 3 − 4r ) r ⎤ + 2 ⎡ r − 2 arcsin r ⎤ (A.24)
⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1 − r 3 (1 − r ) 1 − r ⎦ ⎣ 1− r ⎦
r x ⎡ 3 − 2x ⎤ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎛ 6 − 5r ⎞ r
I =∫ ⎢ 2⎥
dx = ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ − 4 arcsin r (A.25)
0 1− x ⎢⎣ (1 − x ) ⎥⎦ ⎝ 3 ⎠⎝ 1 − r ⎠ 1 − r
2 1− r ⎡ 1− r ⎤ r x ⎡ 3 − 2x ⎤
ε =
3 ⎢ ⎥ ∫
r ⎣ 3 − 2r ⎦ 0 1 − x
⎢ 2⎥
⎢⎣ (1 − x ) ⎥⎦
dx (A.26)
⎛ 4 ⎞ ⎛ 6 − 5r ⎞ 8 1 − r ⎛ 1 − r ⎞
ε =⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟− ⎜ ⎟ arcsin r (A.27)
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ ⎝ 3 − 2r ⎠ 3 r ⎝ 3 − 2r ⎠
The behavior in the limit of the average strain will be:
⎛ 4 ⎞
lim ε = ⎜ ⎟ (A.28)
r →1
⎝3 3⎠
⎛ 8 ⎞ 8 ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 8 ⎞ 8 ⎛ 1 ⎞
lim ε = ⎜ ⎟ − lim ⎜ ⎟ arcsin r = ⎜ ⎟ − lim ⎜ ⎟=0 (A.29)
r →0
⎝ 3 3 ⎠ 3 3 r →0 ⎝ r ⎠ ⎝ 3 3 ⎠ 3 3 r →0 ⎝ 1 − r ⎠
Plastic Stress Field Integral
⎡ ⎤
σ C ⎢ Ψ′ (ξ ) sin 2 ξ − Ψ (ξ ) sin ξ cos ξ ⎥
I =∫ ⎥ sinh η dη cosh η = x (A.30)
3 ⎢⎢
3
⎣ ( sin 2
ξ + Ψ (ξ ) sinh η )
2 2 2 ⎥
⎦

⎡ ⎤
σ C ⎢ ( Ψ ′ sin ξ − Ψ sin ξ cos ξ ) ⎥ ( Ψ′ sinξ − Ψ sin ξ cos ξ )
2 2
σC
I =∫ dx = ∫ 3 dx (A.31)
3 ⎢⎢ ⎥
3 3
( sin 2
ξ −Ψ +Ψ x
2 2
)
2 2
⎥ ⎡ ⎤ 2
( sin 2 ξ − Ψ 2 ) 2 ⎢1 + sinΨ2 ξ x− Ψ 2 ⎥
3 2 2
⎣ ⎦
⎢⎣ ( ) ⎥⎦
Ψx
Change of variable: = tan ϕ (A.32)
sin 2 ξ − Ψ 2
σ C ( Ψ′ sin ξ − Ψ sin ξ cos ξ )

2
I =∫ cos ϕdϕ (A.33)

3 Ψ ( sin 2 ξ − Ψ 2 )
σ C ( Ψ′ sin ξ − Ψ sin ξ cos ξ ) σ C ( Ψ ′ sin ξ − Ψ sin ξ cos ξ ) ⎛ tan ϕ ⎞

2 2
I= sin ϕ = ⎜ ⎟ (A.34)
3 Ψ ( sin 2 ξ − Ψ 2 ) 3 Ψ ( sin 2 ξ − Ψ 2 ) ⎜
⎝ 1 + tan ϕ
2 ⎟
⎠
σ C ( Ψ′ sin ξ − Ψ sin ξ cos ξ ) ⎛ ⎞

2
cosh η
I= ⎜ ⎟ (A.35)
3 ( sin ξ − Ψ )
2 2 ⎜
⎝ sin ξ + Ψ sinh η
2 2 2 ⎟
⎠
Conversion between Bipolar ξ and Angular Coordinate φ
From the Cartesian Coordinates, we have:
a sinh η a sin ξ
x= y= z=z (A.36)
In the cold flat rolling approximation, we get:
− a sin ξ − a sin ξ
− y = R sin φ = ≅ (A.37)
( cosh η − cos ξ ) (1 − cos ξ )
e2 a sinh η0 aη0 e2
x= + R (1 − cos φ ) = ≅ = (A.38)
2 ( cosh η0 − cos ξ ) (1 − cos ξ ) (1 − cos ξ )
e2 e
= 2 + R (1 − cos φ ) (A.39)
(1 − cos ξ ) 2
e2 e
= 2 + R (1 − cos α ) (A.40)
(1 − cos ξ0 ) 2
cos ξ 0 = 2r − 1 ⇒ ξ 0 = 2π − cos −1 ( 2r − 1) (A.41)

48 G. Echave
e2 ⎛ r ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = R (1 − cos α ) (A.42)
2 ⎝ 1− r ⎠
2
⎛e ⎞ ⎛μ⎞
Using the bipolar coordinate of the rolls: η02 = ⎜ 2 ⎟ = ⎜ ⎟ , we have:
⎝ R ⎠ ⎝ϑ ⎠
η02 ⎛ r ⎞
cos α = 1 − ⎜ ⎟ (A.43)
2 ⎝ 1− r ⎠
1 1 R
= + (1 − cos φ ) (A.44)
(1 − cos ξ ) 2 e2
−1
⎡1 1 ⎤
cos ξ = 1 − ⎢ + 2 (1 − cos φ ) ⎥ (A.45)
⎣ 2 η0 ⎦
⎛ ⎡1 1 ⎤ ⎞
−1
ξ = 2π − cos ⎜1 − ⎢ + 2 (1 − cos φ ) ⎥ ⎟
−1
(A.46)
⎜ ⎣ 2 η0 ⎦ ⎟⎠
⎝
⎛ ⎡1 1 ⎛ φ ⎞⎤ ⎞
−1
⎡ ⎛ ⎞ ⎤ ⎛φ ⎞
ξ = 2π − cos ⎜1 − ⎢ + 2 ⎜1 − cos ⎢⎜ ⎟ α ⎥ ⎟ ⎥ ⎟
−1
0 ≤ ⎜ ⎟ ≤1 (A.47)
⎜ ⎣ 2 η0 ⎝ ⎣⎝ α ⎠ ⎦ ⎠ ⎦ ⎟⎠ ⎝α ⎠
⎝
Second Order Taylor Expansions
2
1 1 ⎡ 3 ⎤ ⎡ Ψ ⎤ ⎛η2 ⎞
≅ − 3 +⎢ 3 ⎥⎢ ⎜ ⎟ (A.48)
3
sin ξ ⎣ sin ξ ⎦ ⎣ sin ξ ⎥⎦ ⎝ 2 ⎠
( sin 2
ξ + Ψ sinh η )
2 2 2
2
1 1 1 ⎡ Ψ ⎤ ⎛η2 ⎞
≅− + ⎜ ⎟ (A.49)
sin 2 ξ + Ψ 2 sinh 2 η sin ξ sin ξ ⎢⎣ sin ξ ⎥⎦ ⎝ 2 ⎠
1 ⎪⎧ ⎡ Ψ ⎤ ⎫⎪ ⎛ η 2 ⎞
2
cosh η 1 ⎛η4 ⎞
≅− − ⎨1− ⎢ ⎬ ⎜ ⎟ + Θ ⎜ ⎟
sin 2 ξ + Ψ 2 sinh 2 η sin ξ sin ξ ⎪⎩ ⎣ sin ξ ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 24 ⎠
1 ⎧⎪ ⎡ Ψ ⎤ ⎫⎪ ⎛ η 2 ⎞
2
1
=− − ⎨1 − ⎬⎜ ⎟ (A.50)
sin ξ sin ξ ⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ sin ξ ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭ ⎝ 2 ⎠
1 ⎧⎪ ⎡ Ψ ⎤ ⎫⎪
2
⎛η4 ⎞
− ⎨1 − ⎢ ⎬ ⎡1 − 9 H ′ 2
( ξ ) ⎤
⎦ ⎜ 24 ⎟
sin ξ ⎪⎩ ⎣ sin ξ ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭ ⎣ ⎝ ⎠

Therefore, according to expansion (A.50), there can be suppression or oscillation in the singular
term (182) near the rolls when the following condition is fulfilled:
1
⎛η2 ⎞ ⎛η4 ⎞ ⎛ 12 ⎞ ⎛ 12 ⎞ 2
⎜ ⎟ ⎣ ≤ ⎡ 9 H ′ 2
( ξ ) − 1⎤ ⇒
⎦ ⎜ 24 ⎟ ⎣⎡ 9 H ′ 2
( ξ ) − 1⎤ ≥
⎦ ⎜η2 ⎟ ⇒ H ′ ( ξ ) ≥ ⎜ 2 ⎟ ≅ 12 (A.51)
⎝ 9η0 ⎠
N N N
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
For this requirement to happen we must have using the zero order plastic stress field: ϑ > 1.7
and r > 70% . For larger values in (A.51), the suppression propagates down the length of the
neutral surface up to the middle plane of the strip η = 0 . This condition is never attained in a
practical mill operation. A physical interpretation of this effect is beyond the scope of the model
because the perturbative treatment of the shear structure is no longer valid.
1 1 1 ⎛η2 ⎞
≅ − (A.52)
( cosh η − cos ξ ) (1 − cos ξ ) (1 − cos ξ )2 ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
1 ⎛η 2 ⎞
ln ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ≅ ln (1 − cos ξ ) + (A.53)
(1 − cos ξ ) ⎜⎝ 2 ⎟⎠
∂σ ξξ 2σ C sin 2 ξ + Ψ sinh 2 η ⎛ 1 ⎞ σC Ψ sin 2 ξ cosh η

+ ⎜ ⎟− =0 (A.54)
∂ξ 3 sin 2 ξ + Ψ 2 sinh 2 η ⎝ cosh η − cos ξ ⎠
3
3
( sin ξ + Ψ sinh η )
2 2 2 2
∂σ ξξ2σ ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ σ C ⎡ Ψ ⎤ 2σ C sin ξ ⎛η2 ⎞

− C ⎜ ⎟+ ⎢ ⎥+ 2 ⎜ ⎟
∂ξ 3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 3 ⎣ sin ξ ⎦ 3 (1 − cos ξ ) ⎝ 2 ⎠
2 3
(A.55)
σ ⎡ Ψ ⎤ ⎛ 3 + cos ξ ⎞ ⎛ η 2 ⎞ 2σ C ⎛ sin ξ ⎞ ⎡ Ψ ⎤ ⎛ η 2 ⎞ 3σ C ⎡ Ψ ⎤ ⎛η2 ⎞
− C⎢ ⎥⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟⎢ ⎥ ⎜ ⎟− ⎢ sin ξ ⎥ ⎜ 2 ⎟ = 0
3 ⎣ sin ξ ⎦ ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ ⎣ sin ξ ⎦ ⎝ 2 ⎠ 3 ⎣ ⎦ ⎝ ⎠
⎛ σ ξξ ⎞ 1 1 ⎛η2 ⎞ 1
= ( − ξ ) − ( ξ ) + ⎜ ⎟ + [ I ( ξ ) − 2 J ( ξ ) + 3K ( ξ )]η + h (η ) (A.56)
2
⎜ ⎟ ln 1 cos H
⎝ 2k ⎠ 2 (1 − cos ξ )⎝ ⎠
2 4
Non-Perturbative Model for the Plastic Stress Field
When the value of the shear structure is high enough, there is a large violation of the Von Mises
criterion next to the rolls and around the neutral point. In this case, the perturbative treatment of
the first order plastic stress field is no longer valid and the following boundary value problem
coming from equations (102) and (103) must be solved in the roll gap.
∂σ ξξ 2σ C ⎛ sin ξ + H ′ (ξ )η ⎞ {1 + f (ξ )} σ H ′ (ξ )
2
3 {
− ⎜ ⎟ + C 1 + f (ξ )} = 0 (A.57)
∂ξ 3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 1 + H ′ ( ξ )η
2 2
3⎡
⎣1 + H ′ (ξ )η ⎤⎦
2 2 2

50 G. Echave
∂σ ηη 2σ C ⎛ 1 − H ′ ( ξ ) sin ξ ⎞ {1 + f (ξ )}η σ C ∂ ⎛⎜ H ′ ( ξ )η ⎞
∂η
+ ⎜ ⎟ + {1 + f ( ξ )} ⎟ = 0 (A.58)
3 ⎝ 1 − cos ξ ⎠ 1 + H ′ 2 ( ξ )η 2 3 ∂ξ ⎜ 1 + H ′2 (ξ )η 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Dξη σC H ′ ( ξ )η
σ ξη =
λ
≅ {1 + f (ξ )} (A.59)
3 1 + H ′ 2 ( ξ )η 2
2 Dξξ 2σ C 1
σ ξξ − σ ηη =
λ
≅ {1 + f (ξ )} (A.60)
3 1 + H ′ 2 ( ξ )η 2
Initial boundary conditions with the rolls:
Forward slipping region: σ ξη (ξ ,η0 ) = μσ ηη (ξ , ξ 0 ) ∀ξ ∈ [ξ N , ξ 0 ] (A.61)
Backward slipping region: σ ξη (ξ ,η0 ) = − μσ ηη (ξ , π ) ∀ξ ∈ [π , ξ N ] (A.62)
Boundary conditions at the roll gap entrance and exit:
η0 e2 Rdη
∫ η σ ξξ (ξ = ξ ,η ) (1 − cos ξ ) = σ e
− 0
0
0
1 1 (A.63)
η0 e2 Rdη
∫ η σ ξξ (ξ = π ,η )
− 0 2
= σ 2 e2 (A.64)
This is an iterative boundary value problem, which must be solved numerically. After the first
iteration, the boundary conditions (A.61) and (A.62) must change to agree with the calculated
shear structure and therefore we must have:
σC H1′ (ξ )η0
σ ξη (ξ ,η0 ) = {1 + f (ξ )} ∀ξ ∈ [π , ξ 0 ] (A.65)
3 1 + H1′2 (ξ )η02
The iterative process stops and the solution can be considered valid when the relative error in
the shear structure between two successive iterations is satisfied.
H i′+1 (ξ ) − H i′ (ξ )
ε (ξ ) = <M ∀ξ ∈ [π , ξ 0 ] (A.66)
H i′ (ξ )
This procedure considering strain hardening could be used for a further improvement in the fit
of the Siebel & Lueg roll pressure profile.

2011 (G. Echave Iriarte) - A New Analytical Model For Cold Rolling of Sheet and Strip

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011 (G. Echave Iriarte) - A New Analytical Model For Cold Rolling of Sheet and Strip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A NEW ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR COLD ROLLING OF SHEET

MS Mechanical Engineering, University of Navarra, Spain.

Received 13 September 2010; accepted 14 January 2011

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

2 PREVIOUS ANALYTICAL MODELS IN COLD FLAT ROLLING

p Pressure distribution along the arc of contact.

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

The Levy-Mises flow rule.

The equation for the total power in the continuum.

The first law of thermodynamics in adiabatic regime.

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

4 COLD FLAT ROLLING

4.1 Definition of the Problem and Coordinates

Figure 1: The cold flat rolling process.

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

R Radius of the deformed rolls.

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

Figure 2: Geometric model for cold flat rolling.

The relations between Cartesian and bipolar cylindrical coordinates are:

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

4.2 Kinematics of the Flow. Plastic Velocity Field

The incompressibility condition ∇v = 0 in general orthogonal coordinates and in the special

Because ξ ∈ [π , 2π ) we have ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ≠ 0 and therefore:

f (ξ ,η ) = ( cosh η − cos ξ ) h (η ) (19)

vξ = v1 ( cosh η − cos ξ ) h (η ) (20)

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

cos ξ 0v = 1 − ( 2e2 e1 ) = 2r − 1 (24)

If the position of the neutral point is given, we have:

For the output velocity of the strip after rolling, we have:

⎛ e ⎞ ( cosh η − cos ξ ) ( coshη − cos ξ )( coshη0 + 1) ω R

4.3 Approximations for Cold Rolling of Sheet and Strip

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

The final thickness of the strip will be therefore:

The intersection of the boundary Σ1+ with the rolls is:

In these conditions, we have therefore:

a = R sinh η0 ≅ Rη0 = e2 R (40)

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

4.4 Symmetric Component of the Velocity Gradient. (Strain Rates)

1 ∂v1 v ∂g1 v ∂g1

1 ∂vξ ⎛ e ⎞ ⎛ cosh η − cos ξ ⎞ sin ξ

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

⎛ e ⎞ ⎛ cosh η − cos ξ ⎞ sinh η ⎡ 1 ⎛ cos ξ + 1 ⎞ ⎤

1⎛ cos ξ + 1 ⎞ ⎛ cos ξ + 3 ⎞ ⎛ cos ξ + 2 ⎞ ⎛ η 2 ⎞

⎛ e ⎞ ⎛ cosh η − cos ξ ⎞ sinh η

Obviously, the incompressibility condition is fulfilled by the rates above:

Dii = Dξξ + Dηη + Dzz = 0 (56)

The expression for the equivalent plastic strain rate is:

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

4.5 Average Measures of Strain and Strain Rate

Using the approximations abovementioned, we are going to establish suitable measures of

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

Figure 3: Average strain rate in cold flat rolling.

Figure 4: Average strain in cold flat rolling.

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

Integrating by parts, we have:

4 1 − r ⎡ 1 − r ⎤ cos−1 ( 2 r −1) ⎛ ξ ⎞ ⎡ 2 − cos ξ ⎤

Change of variable: ξ = cos −1 ( 2 x − 1) .

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

Performing the integral (see Appendix), we have finally:

4.6 Plastic Stress Field in the Rigid Perfectly Plastic Model

Int. J. of Appl. Math and Mech. 7 (10): 1-50, 2011.

From equations (83) and (84), we get: