Some fundamental considerations for the control of residual

atness in tension levelling

J.W. Morris
a,*
, S.J. Hardy
b
, J.T. Thomas
c
a
Department of Materials Engineering, EngD Centre, University of Wales, Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Wales, Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK
c
Corus Group R, D & T, Welsh Technology Centre, Port Talbot, South Wales SA13 2NG, UK
Received 16 February 2001; accepted 19 September 2001
Abstract
Tension levelling is a process used in the steel industry in order to remove any shape defects present in temper rolled strip. It is generally
the nal process before the cold rolled product is despatched to the customer, and therefore plays an important role in delivering the desired
material properties and the product standards required.
In this paper a designed factorial analysis has been employed in order to study the effect that tension levelling process parameters have on
the shape characteristics of the levelled product. These characteristics include residual atness (longitudinal curvature or longbow),
centreline elongation and residual (or internal) stress imbalances; criteria which determine whether the customer accepts the material or not.
It has been identied that in a basic ve-roll leveller the nal, adjustable roll wrap angle, has the most signicant inuence on these
characteristics in over 70% of cases. It has also been determined that nal atness is dictated by many second-order process interactions.
# 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
Keywords: Tension levelling; Statistical process control; Mathematical modelling
1. Introduction
With the introduction of sophisticated roll congurations
in the accumulators of steel processing lines, an ever
increasing requirement of the rolling mills is to supply
material which is of very slight full-centre. The introduction
of this shape into the material, coupled with processing
through a series of concave/convex rolls, has the advantage
of allowing high tracking control. Such control is essential
when strip material in coil form is processed through the
furnaces of continuous annealing processing lines. In some
cases, however, the material may be over-rolled at sections
across the width due to problems at the rolling mills. In
thinner, high strength materials, and to a certain degree in
heavier gauge materials, this can lead to the introduction of
excessive, manifest shape defects such as edge or centre
waves. These manifest shape defects can also be introduced
by the skin-pass operation at the temper mill due to poor
rolling conditions. Since these defects are unacceptable to
some customersfor example in ofce furniture applica-
tions, where strip of near-perfect shape is requiredthe strip
has to be tension levelled in order to achieve the required
degree of atness.
In tension levelling, the mechanism that provides this
shape removal is a combination of bending and signicant
longitudinal tension, Fig. 1. Bending occurs over relatively
small diameter rolls, with a typical diameter of 60 mm used
when processing steel strip. This requirement, however, will
change depending on the characteristics of the processed
material. For example, when tension levelling tinplate mate-
rial, it is not uncommon for the machine to use 2025 mm
diameter bend rolls. As a result of processing material with
longer longitudinal bres (in the case of centre buckle, the
centre longitudinal bres across width will be longer) in
some sections across the width, strain equalisation occurs.
Preferential elongation of the shortest longitudinal bres
ensures that all bres are of equal length. The tension
applied in most cases is predominantly a function of the
yield stress of the incoming material, with a feasible window
of between 10 and 40% of initial yield used.
A typical tension levelling machine will contain at least
ve main bend rolls, with other arrangements and additional
rolls included depending on the manufacturer and the type of
material most commonly processed through the machine. It
is usual to x bend rolls one, three and ve at the passline
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396
*
Corresponding author.
0924-0136/02/$ see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
PII: S0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 1 1 7 5 - X
whilst adjusting the penetration depths of Rolls 2 and 4
(Fig. 1), such that a decreasing bending moment is progres-
sively achieved towards the exit end of the machine. It is
convenient to think of this bending moment in terms of a so-
called wrap angle, i.e. the angle subtended by the radii of the
nominal points of contact over a roll, and therefore to reduce
the magnitude of this wrap progressively towards the exit
end of the leveller. This adjustment is usually performed on-
line in relatively small increments in order to obtain opti-
mum shape removal at Rolls 2 and 3 (via complete con-
formation at the rollstrip interface). Rolls 4 and 5 are then
set accordingly, such that at material is achieved post-
levelling due to a bend radius signicantly larger than that of
the roll radius.
So-called ``shape'' can generally be classied into two
groupslatent and manifest. Latent shape appears visible
when coil or sheet is slit or cut. This latent property can
make the material appear at prior to a cutting operation, and
can be attributed to residual (or internal) stress differentials
through-gauge and cross-width. Similarly, manifest shape is
associated with defects which appear visibly (either in coiled
form or under line tension ) such as edge-waves and centre/
quarter-buckling. Surface area defects such as longbow
(permanent longitudinal curvature) can be classed as latent
since this defect, in general, is only visible when the coiled
material is reduced into sheet form.
Roller levelling or multi-roll levelling is a process used to
remove shape in its various latent forms. In contrast to
tension levelling, the process of roller levelling is restricted
in its use by the nature of the incoming shape defect. In
general, roller levellers are best suited to remove defects of
latent shape such as longbow due to power restrictions,
specically front-line tension capabilities. The roller leveller
may contain more than twice the number of work rolls
compared to that of its tension levelling counterpart, with
only sufcient line tension to pull the material through the
machine. The two processes can be used in tandem [1], in
order to produce material which is required to be perfectly
at, and to produce desirable residual stress distributions
through-gauge. In this situation, the tension leveller is
predominantly used upstream to remove manifest defects,
whilst the roller leveller, with its lowline tension and smaller
diameter work rolls, is used to obtain perfectly at strip with
balanced internal stresses.
2. Tension leveller analysis methodology
Historically, empirical methods have been employed to
analyse the process of tension levelling [2,3]. Commission-
ing of leveller machines demand that the correct settings are
obtained for each material that the leveller will process. This
measure usually involves two explicit stages: rstly, the
correct roll penetrations or plunge depths at early rolls must
be obtained, which ensures full conformation of strip to the
bend roll. Secondly, the nal roll(s) are adjusted incremen-
tally until at strip is observed from cut samples. In some
cases, a matrix of leveller settingswhich may take many
man-years to completefor the whole product range is
obtained. These settings are then used as a reference for
subsequent incoming material. However, this method is not
without its problems. In most cases, the obtained matrix
leveller settings for the subsequent material do not produce
at material, and can deviate from atness by 20 mm. The
problem with employing such a method is that no account is
taken of the natural variation in mechanical properties in the
coiled material which occur from head-to-tail end. Other
factors, such as linespeed, elongation/tension and bend roll
wrap angle can also vary throughout processing to a small
degree, which may detrimentally inuence the nal atness.
The tension levelling process has also been analysed
extensively using numerical techniques [48]. Analytical
solutions have been proposed [9,10], mainly as a develop-
ment tool or guide, in order to determine process character-
istics. Analytical solutions of residual curvature are not
known to exist, and it is necessary, therefore, to perform
such an analysis with the aid of a numerical solution based
on constitutive plasticity laws [11,12].
3. Statistically designed experiments
It is becoming ever more important to understand and,
ultimately, control process parameters which affect the
residual atness of the coiled product. In order to achieve
at material across the product range using tension levellers,
it is often necessary to perform some type of parametric
study to obtain a gauge/width matrix. Frequently this matrix
will be chemistry dependent. This method, however, is
extremely labour intensive and, moreover, does not offer
Fig. 1. Schematic layout of general five roll tension leveller, showing contact wrap angle (y at each bend roll).
386 J.W. Morris et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396
a robust theoretical consistency which is applicable between
machines and consecutive coils. A process tool employed
for such an analysis is the area of statistical process control
known as robust design.
Experimental or robust design is a tool used by statistical
process control engineers in order to determine those pro-
cess variables which affect the quality and consistency of a
product. Fig. 2 gives a simplied view of robust design. The
number of experiments can be reduced by using the Taguchi
approach. Robust design was developed in the early 1950s
by Taguchi [13]. In Taguchi methodology, the experiments
are not designed. Instead, so-called orthogonal arrays are
given for a particular project, such as the popular L
8
(2
7
)
array. This particular design is capable of analysing up to
seven process variables, with each variable set at two levels
(hence the descriptor 2
7
), using as few as 16 individual
analyses. Unfortunately, there are major shortcomings of
this method. For example, the aliasing structure is not self-
evident from the interaction tables given; this structure is
also time-consuming to obtain. (All location effectsor
effects which show the extent to which the average response
is inuenced by a change in the level of that factor
estimated from a fractional factorial design are so-called
aliased effects, i.e. the effects of changes in the factors on the
response cannot be distinguished from one another and are,
therefore, said to be aliased). In addition, the orthogonal
arrays can be interpreted as fractional factorial arrays in
most cases, which can give misleading results to the
designer. This is of particular concern when dealing with
the interactions between the factors as partial aliasing of
two-factor interactions with main effects can occur.
On the other hand, experiments which have been statis-
tically designed for a particular project offer a more suitable
and effective alternative. In contrast with the Taguchi
method, statistically designed experiments involve planning
the whole analysis. This results in a more controlled and
systematically designed set of experiments, including a full
alias structure, and is the method chosen here to analyse the
basic ve-roll tension levelling process.
4. Factorial analysis
An engineering experiment has been designed in order to
investigate the effect particular parameters of the tension
levelling process have on the characteristics of the levelled
product. The aim is to nd levels of the controllable factors
of the process that are least inuenced by noise factors, and
to reduce variability around a mean target value or response,
Y. Each experiment has been carried out using a fully
validated ABAQUS nite element (FE) model, the details
of which can be found elsewhere [14]. Fig. 3 shows the
levelling conguration and material geometry used in the FE
simulations.
The response, Y, takes several forms, although each test
response shares the same base and test design. Each response
has been identied as follows: residual atness (Dr),
elongation (e), topbottom surface residual stress imbal-
ances including whole surface, edge/centre imbalances
and residual stress levels (normalised to yield stress) at
Fig. 2. General model of a manufacturing system.
Fig. 3. Levelling configuration and materials geometry used for the factorial experiments. Centreline symmetry has been assumed, giving a total strip width
of 100 mm. The gauge used is 0.7 mm.
J.W. Morris et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396 387
mid-thickness. Residual atness is taken from a fully
levelled, 600 mm length of strip, with elongation response
taken as the total centreline elongation of the material. The
stress balances were calculated by taking the sum of the
differences in stress magnitudes at each element integration
point across-width. For the strip edge, residual stress imbal-
ances were calculated from 25% of the full width, i.e. at a
distance, k
edge
, of
k
edge
=
distance
total width
=
25
100
mm = 25% section
Similarly, for the strip centre
k
centre
=
25
100
mm = 25% section
The sum k
edge
k
centre
is equal to 50% since centreline
symmetry in the FE model has been assumed. A graphical
description of each response is given in Fig. 4. The meth-
odology used to establish the experiments, including a
description of the factors, their associated levels and coded
test conditions, is given in Appendix A.
The full factorial analysis requires n
k
tests, where n
designates the number of levels allocated to each factor
and the superscript k refers to the number of factors (linear
dependency is assumed). For ve factors each at two levels
this yields 2
5
or 32 experiments. It has been identied that a
one-half fractional factorial of design 2
k1
V
can be employed
in order to reduce the number of tests performed, giving 2
51
or 16 tests. (The subscript ``V'' indicates that the design is of
resolution ve.) Therefore, no main or rst-order interaction
location effects are aliased with any other main or rst-order
interaction location effects. First-order interactions are actu-
ally aliased with higher order interaction location effects,
allowing all main and rst-order interactions to be identied.
For robust design, a resolution of III should not be
considered as an alternative. Since an uncontrollable or noise
factor is present, the emphasis on the initial design must be on
making the process robust to noise. The 15 aliased relation-
ships for the 2
51
V
design are given in Appendix A.4. These
effects have been obtained from the design generator
E = ABCD = ABCDE (1)
according to Montgomery [15] for a 2
51
V
one-half fractional
factorial design.
To identify the important parameters of the tension level-
ling process, it is assumed that each location effect has a mean
Fig. 4. Description of responses used in the factorial analysis.
388 J.W. Morris et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396
of zero, and that each effect has the same standard deviation.
This is achieved by ranking each estimated location effect
from most negative to most positive. From this, it follows
that each effect has exactly the same normal distribution, and
thus, each effect represents a point under this distribution. A
cumulative probability (CP) is then assigned for each loca-
tion effect. The CP associated with each location effect is
given by the following expression:
CP
i
=
100(i 0:5)
M 1
(2)
where M is the number of test conditions, i is a rank index
equal to 1 for the most negative location effect, 2 for the next
most negative and so on up to M for the most positive
location effect. Important location effects in subsequent
probability plots are seen as those factors which deviate
from a linear regression line drawn through location effects
which have a mean or net effect of zero.
5. Results
The probability plots of estimated location effects for the
seven identied responses are shown in Figs. 510. A
summary of these results can also be found in Table 1.
5.1. Flatness
Five levelling factors, as a combination of single factors
and interactions, inuence the nal atness of the material
(Fig. 5):
v The single most influential factor is Roll 4 wrap angle
(factor B). This design factor only has a positive influence
on flatness, i.e. regardless of the setting in these experi-
ments, the material will always maintain a positive (bow-
ing up) longitudinal curvature. In over 70% of responses,
Roll 4 wrap angle also appears as the most influential. The
yield stress of the material, factor E, is the next most
influential factor.
v Four interactions of factors, Roll 4 wrap angle/yield
stress, Roll 4 wrap angle/elongation, Roll 2 wrap
angle/Roll 4 wrap angle and linespeed/yield stress (i.e.
BE, BD, AB and CE, respectively) in order of rank. The
BD interaction, like factor B alone, has only a positive
influence whilst all other important interactions have a
negative influence on flatness, i.e. these interactions
Fig. 5. Probability plot of estimated location effectsflatness response.
Fig. 6. Probability plot of estimated effectselongation response.
Fig. 7. Probability plot of estimated location effectsresidual stress
imbalance at the strip edge.
J.W. Morris et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396 389
produce material that has negative longitudinal curvature
(bowing down).
v It is worth noting that no single parameter, with the
exception of Roll 4 wrap angle, appears as influential
in dictating final flatness.
5.2. Elongation
Four factors affect the total centreline elongation as
shown in Fig. 6.
v The most influential factor affecting elongation is the line
tension, factor D. This influence is always positive.
Similarly, Roll 2 wrap angle, factor A, has a positive
effect and is the next most influential factor.
v Those factors which attempt to inhibit the elongation are
the yield stress (factor E), and the interaction between
Roll 4 wrap angle and the yield stress, BE.
Fig. 8. Probability plot of estimated location effectsresidual stress
imbalance at the strip centre.
Fig. 9. Probability plot of estimated location effectsresidual stress
imbalance between top and bottom surfaces.
Fig. 10. Probability plot of estimated location effectsnormalised
residual stress at the strip centreline (through gauge) as a function of
yield stress.
Table 1
Summary of all seven factorial experiments
a
Response Individual factor rank Interaction rank
A B C D E AB AD BD BE CE
Flatness 1 4 3 2 5
Elongation 2 1 3 4
Percent difference in yield 1 2
Centreline residual stress 4 3 1 2
Centre balance 1 3 2
Edge balance 1 2
Topbottom balance 1 3 2
a
Numbers corresponding to each factor refer to its rank of importance or most influential factor within that experiment (number 1 indicates highest
rank).
390 J.W. Morris et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396
5.3. Residual stress
As with atness, the most inuential factor affecting the
residual stress balances at the edge, centre and surface
differentials (Figs. 7, 8 and 9, respectively), is the wrap
angle on Roll 4. The normalised residual stress levels at the
centre of the material (taken as the residual stress:yield stress
ratio) are inuenced by the line tension or elongation applied
to the centreline, Fig. 10.
6. Control of final flatness
From the probability plots in Figs. 510, it can be seen
that the most inuential factor in most responses is the wrap
angle on Bend Roll 4. The next most inuential factors
appear as interactions in the probability plot of estimated
location effects. The process is, therefore, dictated by many
of these second-order effects. This shows that the effect of
one factor alone may not be important until its parent,
interacting factor, is set at a particular level. Furthermore,
the adjustment of a single factor by the operator will have
wider implications on the atness response which may not
necessarily be obvious. This phenomena can be used to
minimise the variation in nal atness, commonly found on
plant in the levelled product. The most inuential interaction
is that of the wrap angle on Roll 4 (factor B) and the yield
stress of the material (factor E).
Since the yield stress of the material is a noise factor, i.e.
difcult to control at the point of manufacture or the point of
processing, the effect that this noise has on the levelled
product must be minimised. This can be achieved by rst
looking at the interaction between the interacting factors in a
two-way diagram, Fig. 11. This gure shows a graphical
interpretation of the interaction between Roll 4 wrap angle
and yield stress. The two lines are not parallel, indicating
that a strong interaction between the factors is present. When
yield stress is at its lower level (1) the likely variation in
atness to be expected is 30 mm, depending on the level at
which the Roll 4 wrap angle is set. Similarly, if the yield
stress is at its higher level (1), the variation is signicantly
smaller, this being 10 mm. Avariation in yield stress from
head-to-tail in the coil (190230 MPa), therefore, provides a
rationale for observed variations in atness in levelled
material through-coil.
If the elongation and Roll 4 wrap angle interaction (BD) is
considered, as shown in Fig. 12, it can be seen that when
elongation is maintained at its lower level (0.3% in this case)
the maximum variation in atness to be expected is
10 mm. If the elongation applied is at its higher level
(0.6%) then the expected variation increases signicantly to
30 mm. Variation in atness may also be controlled by
setting levels of Rolls 2 and 4, accordingly, as shown in the
two-way diagram in Fig. 13. The interaction between these
two factors shows that by setting Roll 2 wrap angle (or
penetration) to its higher level, and adjusting Roll 4 accord-
ingly between the two levels used on the experiment, the
variation is minimised. Indeed, it is common practice to use
such a method to obtain minimum nal atness.
To minimise the effect that yield stress noise has on the
nal atness, it is necessary to consider its interaction with
other design factors. It has been identied that the wrap
angle on Roll 4 interacts signicantly with the yield stress. A
second factor which interacts with the yield stress is the
process linespeed (factor C). This interaction is shown in
Fig. 14. Although the inuence is small relative to that
Fig. 11. Two-way diagram showing how the flatness characteristic of strip is influenced by the interaction between process factors of Roll 4 wrap angle and
material yield stress.
J.W. Morris et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396 391
shown in Fig. 11, for example, by ensuring that the linespeed
is maintained at its lower level (in this case 60 m/min) the
maximum expected variation in nal atness using other
factors set at correct levels is 3 mm, whereas setting the
linespeed to its higher level of 100 m/min generates a
relatively larger variation in atness.
7. Simple model development
Having found the most inuential factors and the applic-
able interactions between factors, it is now possible to
develop a simple linear regression model in order to predict
the response under several leveller settings. This simple
model is of the form:
Y
j
= model prediction error correction
where Y
j
is the respective response of flatness or residual
stress imbalance, etc., the model prediction describing the
effect of the design factors on the applicable response (the
emphasis here will be on the flatness response) and the error
correction or noise term accounting for any departures in the
model.
For linear regression the model appears in the form:
Y = b
0
b
1
x
1
b
2
x
2
b
n
x
n
f
e
(3)
Fig. 12. Two-way diagram showing how the flatness characteristic of strip is influenced by the interaction between process factors of Roll 4 wrap angle and
total centreline elongation.
Fig. 13. Two-way diagram showing how the flatness characteristic of strip is influenced by the interaction between process factors of Roll 4 wrap angle and
Roll 2 wrap angle.
392 J.W. Morris et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396
where Y represents the response for n variables of x, f
e
the
error term and b are coefficients. Eq. (3) may be modified to
contain only those factors and interactions which are the
most influential in affecting flatness. The coefficients used
are those effects in the factorial analysis which most influ-
ence the response, and the variables are the relevant factors.
This newly formed equation can then be used to predict the
flatness under many different levelling conditions.
The factors which most inuence the atness deviation in
order of rank (rank 1 indicates most inuential) are
1. The wrap angle on Roll 4, factor B;
2. The wrap angle on Roll 4 and yield stress interaction
(BE);
3. The wrap angle on Roll 4 and elongation interaction
(BD);
Fig. 14. Two-way diagrams showing how the flatness characteristic of strip is influenced by the interaction between process factors of material yield stress
and line speed.
Fig. 15. Validation of simple model.
J.W. Morris et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396 393
4. The wrap angle on Roll 2 and wrap angle on Roll 4
interaction (AB);
5. The linespeed and yield stress interaction (CE).
The simple linear atness model now takes the form
Y
j
= 1:06 17:81B 11:32BE 9:98BD
4:65AB 3:55CE (4)
The model is based on the five important effects that have
been identified from the analysis. These are the independent
variables, with the coefficients taken from the main b effect
(the average of all responses at each test condition). The first
term in Eq. (4) is the mean of all test responses (b
0
). The
error term (f
e
) is the sum of the insignificant effects, which
also gives the so-called prediction limits for the model.
A series of conrmation tests have been performed in
order to test the validity of the simple model expressed by
Eq. (4). From the interaction plots of Figs. 1114, it has been
decided that the coded test conditions which give the most
desirable atness results are
v Factor A high (248 wrap angle on Roll 2);
v Factor B high (12.58 wrap angle on Roll 4);
v Factor C low (60 m/min linespeed);
v Factor D low (0.3% total elongation);
v Factor E high (230 MPa yield stress);
which yields a flatness deviation of 5:65 11:04 mm.
Other tests show that lower levels of residual atness can
be achieved. However, the factor levels required to achieve
this magnitude would produce a considerable variation in
atness due to the changes in mechanical properties
throughout the coil, as described earlier. Fig. 15 shows
the full set of conrmation tests using Eq. (4) measured
against ``actual'' values of atness for each coded test
condition in the experiment. The ``actual'' values in
Fig. 15 have been obtained from tests performed with the
validated FE model. It is important to note that all predic-
tions given by the linear model fall well within the prediction
limits given by the error term, f
e
.
8. Conclusions
A series of statistically designed experiments have been
used to analyse the inuence of the tension levelling process
parameters on cold rolled strip characteristics in a basic ve-
roll leveller. The following conclusions can be drawn from
the analysis:
1. The process parameter which has the most significant
influence on final flatness is Roll 4 wrap angle. The
process is influenced by many second-order interactions
in order of rank between (i) Roll 4 wrap angle and yield
stress, (ii) Roll 4 wrap angle and elongation, (iii) Roll 2
wrap angle and Roll 4 wrap angle and (iv) the linespeed
and yield stress interactions.
2. Various process parameters only become influential
when parent (interacting) factors are set or changed to
particular levels. No single parameter, with the excep-
tion of Roll 4 wrap angle, appears as influential. The net
effect on flatness when adjusting a single parameter is
not just a function of that parameter, since many factors
appear only as part of an interaction.
3. Finite changes in yield stress through-coil (1520%)
cause significant variation in the final flatness.
4. Variability in flatness in the levelled product through-
coil can be eliminated or minimised by setting those
process factors which transmit noise to appropriate
levels accordingly.
5. A single prediction equation can be used with ease and
reasonable accuracy to estimate final flatness, given
values of the input factors.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank British Steel Strip
Products (now part of Corus Group plc) for permission
to publish this paper and gratefully acknowledge the sup-
port of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council.
Appendix A. Derivation of base design, coded test
conditions and test matrix
A.1. Factor definitions
A.2. Base design
Once the factors and the levels at which they are to be set
have been identied, the base design can be obtained. The
base design for any fractional factorial design of the form
2
k1
is the full 2
k1
matrix. Numbers within the matrix
(below) designate the level at which the factor is set for a
particular coded test condition. For example, a number ``1''
in the coded test conditions elements indicates a test in
which that factor is set to its higher level. Similarly, ``1''
indicates that a factor has been set at its lower level. The
Factor Definition Factor level and specification
A Roll 2
wrap angle
a
High=24

Low=18

B Roll 4
wrap angle
High=12:5

Low=6

C Line speed High=100 m=min Low=60 m=min

D Elongation High=0:6% Low=0:3%
E Yield stress High=230 MPa Low=190 MPa
a
See Fig. 1 for roll number specifications.
394 J.W. Morris et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396
letters in the ``test'' column indicate which factor is set to its
higher level. The rst test is designated ``(1)'' since all
factors at this test condition are set to their lowest level.
A.3. Introduction of the remaining factor
The nal factorthe design generatoris introduced by
setting levels equal to the product of the elements in the
coded test conditions. Therefore, test ``(1)'' becomes test
``e'' since the design generator in Eq. (1) requires that the
row elements of factors A, B, C and D are multiplied,
hence E = (1)
4
= 1. The base design now takes the
form
A.4. Alias structure
Using alias algebra and referring to Eq. (1), we obtain
E = ABCD = ABCDE
The table above shows all 15 aliased location effects with
first-order interactions highlighted in bold. The design gen-
erator has been chosen such that no main location effect is
aliased with any other main location effect, or with any first-
order interaction location effect. Moreover, all first-order
interactions are aliased with fourth-order interaction location
effects. Hence, the design is the so-called resolution V.
A.5. Defining the test matrix
By conjugating both the base design matrix and the matrix
containing the design-generated terms the test matrix, shown
below, is obtained.
Aliased location effects
A=BCDE B=ACDE C=ABDE D=ABCE E=ABCD
AB=CDE AC=BDE AD=BCE AE=BCD BC=ADE
BD=ACE BE=ACD CD=ABE CE=ABD DE=ABC
Test Coded test conditions
A B C D E
e 1 1 1 1 1
a 1 1 1 1 1
b 1 1 1 1 1
abe 1 1 1 1 1
c 1 1 1 1 1
ace 1 1 1 1 1
bce 1 1 1 1 1
abc 1 1 1 1 1
d 1 1 1 1 1
ade 1 1 1 1 1
bde 1 1 1 1 1
abd 1 1 1 1 1
cde 1 1 1 1 1
acd 1 1 1 1 1
bcd 1 1 1 1 1
abcde 1 1 1 1 1
Test Coded test conditions
A B C D
(1) 1 1 1 1
a 1 1 1 1
b 1 1 1 1
ab 1 1 1 1
c 1 1 1 1
ac 1 1 1 1
bc 1 1 1 1
abc 1 1 1 1
d 1 1 1 1
ad 1 1 1 1
bd 1 1 1 1
abd 1 1 1 1
cd 1 1 1 1
acd 1 1 1 1
bcd 1 1 1 1
abcd 1 1 1 1
Test Coded test conditions
for full 2
4
E = ABCD Response
A B C D
(1) 1 1 1 1
a 1 1 1 1
b 1 1 1 1
ab 1 1 1 1
c 1 1 1 1
ac 1 1 1 1
bc 1 1 1 1
abc 1 1 1 1
d 1 1 1 1
ad 1 1 1 1
bd 1 1 1 1
abd 1 1 1 1
cd 1 1 1 1
acd 1 1 1 1
bcd 1 1 1 1
abcd 1 1 1 1
Coded test conditions for fractional 2
51
e 1 1 1 1 1 Y
1
a 1 1 1 1 1 Y
2
b 1 1 1 1 1 Y
3
abe 1 1 1 1 1 Y
4
c 1 1 1 1 1 Y
5
ace 1 1 1 1 1 Y
6
bce 1 1 1 1 1 Y
7
abc 1 1 1 1 1 Y
8
d 1 1 1 1 1 Y
9
J.W. Morris et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396 395
References
[1] M. Kobayashi, M. Yamashita, K. Takezawa, Establishment of a
process for producing dead-flat thin gauge strips using levellers,
Kawasaki Seitetsu Giho 27 (3) (1995) 136142.
[2] R.R. Hilsen, N.H. Polakowski, Equipment and process variables in ten-
sion levelling of carbon strip, Iron Steel Eng. October 1969, pp. 4756.
[3] R.R. Hilsen, B.S. Levy, N.H. Polakowski, in: Mechanical Working
and Steel Processing, Vol. VIII, Metallurgical Society of AIME,
1967, pp. 3155.
[4] H.M. Williamson, Strain softening during tension levelling of rolled
sheet metals, in: Rolling Technology, Institute of Metals, Australia,
1986, pp. 199205.
[5] Y. Misaka, T. Masui, Shape correction of steel strip by tension
leveller, Trans. ISIJ 18 (1978) 475484.
[6] T. Sheppard, J.M. Roberts, On the mechanics of the tension-levelling
process, J. Inst. Met. 99 (1971) 293301.
[7] T. Sheppard, J.M. Roberts, J. Inst. Met. 99 (1971) 223228.
[8] A. Noe, Theoretical and practical investigation on strecher-and-roller
levelling, Stahl und Eisen 106 (21) (1986) 6773.
[9] M.G. Kinnavy, Recent developments in tension levelling, Iron and
Steel Engineer Year Book, November 1972, pp. 6772.
[10] R.A. Bland, M.F. Alters, Tension levelling of ferrous and non-ferrous
strip, Iron and Steel Engineer Year Book, 1967, pp. 613623.
[11] R. Hill, The Mathematical Theory of Plasticity, Oxford Engineering
Science Series, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1950.
[12] A. Mendelson, Plasticity: Theory and Application, Collier Macmil-
lan, New York, 1968.
[13] G. Taguchi, Introduction to quality engineering: designing quality
into products and processes, Asian Productivity Organization (ISBN:
9283310845), 1986.
[14] J.W. Morris, S.J. Hardy, J.T. Thomas, A.W. Lees, in: Proceedings
of the Conference Tension and Roller Levelling of Flat Products,
Whitehall, London, March 1999, Paper 5, The Institute of
Materials.
[15] D.C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 3rd Edition,
Wiley, New York, 1991.
Appendix A.5 (Continued )
Test Coded test conditions
for full 2
4
E = ABCD Response
A B C D
ade 1 1 1 1 1 Y
10
bde 1 1 1 1 1 Y
11
abd 1 1 1 1 1 Y
12
cde 1 1 1 1 1 Y
13
acd 1 1 1 1 1 Y
14
bcd 1 1 1 1 1 Y
15
abcde 1 1 1 1 1 Y
16
396 J.W. Morris et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 120 (2002) 385396