J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.

DOI 10.1007/s40430-016-0587-6

TECHNICAL PAPER

Analysis of edge rolling based on continuous symmetric parabola

curves
Xu Li1 · Hongyu Wang1 · Yuanming Liu1 · Dianhua Zhang1 · Dewen Zhao1 

Received: 15 January 2016 / Accepted: 7 June 2016

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2016

Abstract  Edge rolling plays a vital role in width control Keywords  Edge rolling · Continuous symmetric parabola ·
of strip rolling, where plastic deformation concentrates in Dog-bone shape · Mean yield criterion · Upper bound
the edge of the slab. Then, the center of the slab remains method
its initial shape. The local deformation is different from
overall one which obtained in horizontal rolling. In this List of symbols
paper, dog-bone shape is creatively described by a continu- w0 Half initial width of the slab
ous symmetric parabola used to describe, and based on the wE Half final width of the slab
complex mathematical function, a kinematically admissi- x Rolling direction
ble continuous velocity field for edge rolling is established. y Thickness direction
Finally, the upper deformation power function is yielded. z Width direction
Based on minimum of the power, the results in edge rolling Ax Width of the zone II from A0 to A
force and torque are obtained. Some vertical rolling forces 2Ax Width of the zone III from 2A0 to 2A
for copper and aluminum experiments are calculated by the Bx Height parameter
function, and then, also the results are verified by the tra- R Radius of the roll
ditional models. Anyway, the maximum error is less than Δw Width reduction in one side
18 %. This is a crossover study on both mathematical curve h0 Half initial thickness of the slab
and mechanical analysis which can be seen as a combina- hr(x)  hr(x) = h0 + Bx
tion of the theory and engineering. hb(x)  hb(x) = h0 + 2Bx
vx Velocity of the slab in rolling direction
v0 Initial velocity of the slab
Technical Editor: Márcio Bacci da Silva.
vR Velocity of the roll
l Projected length of contact arc
* Hongyu Wang UII, UIII Flux per second
wanghongyusci@yeah.net α0 Nip angle in the entrance
Xu Li α Contact angle 0 ≤ α ≤ α0
fly2000lixu@163.com D(ε̇ij ) Deformation power per unit volume
Yuanming Liu Ẇi Internal deformation power
xiao_ming100@126.com τf Slab friction stress
Dianhua Zhang m Friction factor
zdhua@mail.neu.edu.cn Δvf Discontinuous quantity of tangential velocity
Dewen Zhao Ẇf Friction power
zhaodw@ral.neu.edu.cn Ẇs1 Shearing power at the entrance
1 Ẇs2 Shearing power on the surface between zones I
State Key Laboratory of Rolling and Automation,
Northeastern University, Wenhua Street, Shenyang 110819, and II
Liaoning, People’s Republic of China M Rolling torque

13

Fig. 1  Shapes of the slab
before and after rolling
2h0
P Rolling force
ld Rolling force arm
χ Arm factor
ω Angular velocity
1 Introduction
Edge rolling is aim at controlling the width of the slab prior
to finish rolling. The formation of dog bone gravely affects
the final width after horizontal rolling pass. Under the real
hot rolling conditions, some formulas and models for hori-
zontal rolling force are usually used to calculate the edge
rolling. These formulas and models are obtained based on
horizontal rolling deformation characteristics, which are
different from edge rolling. In addition, rolling force is very
important for designed strength of the rolling mill, and roll
gap is related to the rolling force according to elastic–plas-
tic deformation equation. A rolling force model for edge
rolling only, and can be very useful and accurate. A local
deformation will be described more meticulously.
As an important material processing edge rolling was
ever studied by some scholars [1–3], Lundberg and Gus-
tafsson [4] used aluminum and copper as experiment mate-
rials to measured rolling force and research the dog-bone
shape in edge rolling. Duckjoong et al. [5] also put forward
a numerical formula of vertical rolling force based on the
FEM. However, former works are mostly empirical and
numerical, a function which can be used to describe the
dog-bone shape, and rolling force based on analytical solu-
tion for edge rolling was still a fresh field [6–8]. Recently,
Liu proposed a model based on the single sine function to
study the process [9]. However, a more complex function
continuous symmetric parabola can be used to describe the
dog bone more easily. In addition, that only FEM is used
to verify the sine function is insufficiently, some real edg-
ing rolling should be done as well. As for mathematical and
mechanical studies, Li and Wang had given some creatively
models for rolling processes. Tilt angle was used to analyze
the snake rolling process [10]; based on parabola temper-
ature gradient, the temperature gradient rolling force was
solved accurately [11], with deformation curves, the verti-
cal shear distributions were obtained in bimetal asymmetri-
cal rolling [12]; and also based on the curve of the fishtail
13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.
2w0
y A0 2 A0
z
O A 2A
x I II
III II I III
l
2 wE
in both head and end of the plate, the vertical–horizontal
rolling was well analyzed [13]. Based on the mathematical
theories, the engineering practical problems will be solved
by some models easily and precisely.
A continuous symmetric parabola curve will be innova-
tively presented to draw dog-bone shape which is obtained
in the edge of the slab. Based on this new curve function,
a suitable kinematically admissible velocity field is estab-
lished. Through the mean yield criterion and velocity field,
the total edge rolling power is yielded in a form of analyti-
cal expression. Differential calculation is used here to find
the minimum of the power which can be seen as the final
analytical solution. The results calculated by continuous
symmetric parabola are not only compared with those cal-
culated by the previous models, but also verified by those
measured in experiments [14].
2 Velocity field
2.1 Strain state in dog‑bone zone
From Fig. 1, a slab with width from 2w0 is rolled to 2wE
by edge rolling. The entrance center is set as the origin of
the coordinates. The slab is rolled along the x axis. y axis
is used to described the thickness direction. z axis is used
to represent width direction. Because of this is a symmet-
ric process, a quarter of the slab is selected as the research
objective. From Fig. 2, based on the deformation charac-
teristic, three zones are divided along the width direction,
zone I is assumed as a rigid zone, so there will be no plas-
tic deformation. While in zones II and III, there are plas-
tic deformations. A continuous symmetric parabola is used
here in zone II and III to describe the dog-bone shape.
There is a half of parabola curve in zone II, at the same
time, there is another continuous full parabola curve in
zone III. The width of the zone III is 2Ax, while that of zone
II is Ax. Therefore, the zone III is rolled from 2A0 to 2A,
and the zone II is from A0 to A.
The radius of the roll is R, and from Fig. 2, the width
reduction in one side is Δw. As one of the creative point
in this paper, a real edge rolling was conducted with a
lead slab [15, 16]. The size of the material was based on
the model, so the thickness was 2h0 and the width was
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.

Fig. 2  Stress and strain in

zones II and III

2w0

2h0
2w0

2 wE

2 wE

Fig. 3  Experiment of lead bar vertical rolled with 67.5 × 15 (mm) ɛ = 3 %

2w0. As for the heat treatment of the materials, the slab
was annealed in 100° boiling water. The inner surface
was carved with knife. The grids were designed as marks
for deformation in edge rolling. After the edge rolling,
the picture was shown in Fig. 3. From Fig. 3, in both edge
and center, the width lines were remained as the initial
straight. So, there is only a plane deformation in edge roll-
ing (vx = v0), while for length lines were complete differ-
ent between in center and edge. The experiments results
showed that the velocity of the roll affected very less on the
slab and the deformation only appeared in the edge. There-
fore, the assumptions of the dividing zones are realistic.
vR and v0 are roll and entrance velocities, respectively. α0
is the nip angle in the entrance, l is projected length of contact
arc, the half slab are rolled from w0 to wE, and then it yields
v0 = vR cos α0 , α0 = sin−1 (l/R),
(1)
vz0 = −v0 tan α0 = −vR sin α0 .
In Eq. (1), radius of roll is R. The parametric equation of
half width of contact arc and its first derivative are, respec-
tively, as

wx = wE + R − R2 − (l − x)2 , x = l − R sin α, (2)
l−x
wx′ = −  = − tan α.
R − (l − x)2
2 (3)
In the upper equations, contact angle is shown as α, and
the range of this parameter is 0 ≤  α  ≤  α0. As discussed
above, ε̇x = 0 in zones II and III, also the stresses satisfy
σx = (σy + σz)/2. Based on the constant volume principle,
the width direction volumes are transformed to thickness
direction. hx is half thickness, and Ax and Bx are the param-
eters for width and height, respectively, in bite zone:
In zone II, A0 h0 v0 = Ax hIIx vx = UII (4)
In zone III, 2A0 h0 v0 = 2Ax hIIIx vx = UIII . (5)
According to v0 = vx, w0 − wE = 3(A0 − A).
From Eqs. (4) and (5), A0h0 = Axhx = UII/v0, 2A0h0 = 2
Axhx = UIII/v0.
UII and UIII are flux per second, total flow per second
becomes
3A0 h0 = 3Ax hx = (UII + UIII )/v0 . (6)
Differentiating Eq. (6) yields
dhx dAx
=− , εy = ε1 = −εz = −ε3 . (7)
hx Ax
It can obviously be seen from Eq. (7) that only plane
strain state occurs in dog-bone zones, as shown in Fig. 2.
Logarithmic principal strain can also prove the plane
strain state, using volume constancy, and noticing vx = v0
leads to

13
 J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.

y v y II I
1
hd
B Ax = (wx − wE + 3A). (13)
hr 3
B v y II
h0

vzII vzIII hr (x) = h0 + Bx . (14)

I II III

hb (x) = h0 + 2Bx . (15)

0 wE 3A A 2A z
Equations (8)–(15) all satisfy the boundary conditions.

Fig. 4  Dog-bone shape at cross section in exit

2.3 Velocity field with continuous symmetric parabola

For any section in plastic zones from Fig. 4, according to

h0 Ax h0 Ax A0
= , ln = ln = − ln . volume constancy:
hx A0 hx A0 Ax
v0 tan αhx
It results in the same verdict, namely 3Ax vy = −hx vz |z=wx = hx v0 tan α, vy = .
ɛy = ɛ1 = −ɛz = −ɛ3. 3Ax
(16)
2.2 Continuous symmetric parabola dog‑bone shape Noticing A0h0  =  Axhx, and y = 0, vy = 0; y = hx , vy
= v0 tan αhx
3Ax ; linear distribution of vy along y direction
As shown in Fig. 4, dog-bone shape at cross section in exit becomes,
is described by continuous symmetric parabola. In zone
hx v0 tan α y v0 tan αhx
III, there is a full parabola curve, while there is only a vy = = y. (17)
half in zone II. At any cross section in bite zone, width is 3Ax hx 3A0 h0
expressed as Ax in zone II and 2Ax in zone III respectively. For zones III and II, substituting hx = hIIIx and hx = hIIx
The width reduction is Δw = 3(A0 − A), thickness of the into Eq. (17), respectively, yields
slab can be shown as hx, while the dog-bone height is Δhx.
v0 tan αhIII(x,z)
Functions of dog-bone can be expressed as follows: vyIII = y, (18)
3h0 A0
Zone I: 0 ≤ z < wE − 3A : hI = h0 . (8)
v0 tan αhII(x,z)
vyII = y. (19)
Zone II: wE − 3A ≤ z < wE − 3A + Ax : 3h0 A0
Bx (9) From Eqs. (18) and (19), according to Cauchy equation,
hII = 2 (z − wE +3A)2 + h0 .
Ax and noticing ε̇x = 0, strain rate field becomes
∂vyII v0 tan αhII(x,z)
ε̇yII = = = ε̇max = −ε̇zII ,
Zone III: wE − 3A + Ax ≤ z ≤ wE − 3A + 3Ax : ∂y 3A0 h0
(20)
v0 tan αhII(x,z)
Bx (10) ε̇zII =− = ε̇min , ε̇x = 0.
hIII = − 2 (z − wE + 3A − 2Ax )2 + 2Bx + h0 . 3A0 h0
Ax
∂vyIII v0 tan αhIII(x,z)
According to volume constancy, volume pressed by ε̇yIII = = = ε̇max = −ε̇zIII ,
∂y 3A0 h0
lateral pressure is equal to the volume raised in thickness (21)
v0 tan αhIII(x,z)
direction ε̇zIII =− = ε̇min , ε̇x = 0.
3A0 h0
 wE −3A+Ax
(w0 − wx )h0 = hII − h0 dz Noticing w0 − 3A0 = wE − 3A = wx − 3Ax, and integrat-
wE −3A ing formulas (20) and (21) yields
 wE −3A+3Ax (11)
+ hIII − h0 dz. v0 tan α Bx (z − wE + 3A)3
 
wE −3A+Ax vzII = − + h 0 (z − w 0 + 3A 0 ,
)
3h0 A0 3A2x
Then, Bx can be expressed as follows: v0 tan αhII(x,z) y
vyII = , vx = v 0 . (22)
3(w0 − wx )h0 3h0 A0
Bx = . (12)
11Ax

13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.

Bx (z − wE + 3A − 2Ax )3
  
v0 tan α Ax h0 − (2Bx + h0 )(wE − 3A + Ax )
vzIII = − − + (2B x + h 0 ) z + ,
3h0 A0 3A2x 2Bx + h0
(23)
v0 tan αhIII(x,z) y
vyIII = , vx = v0 .
3h0 A0

The velocity and strain rate fields are verified to be kin- Therefore, it draws a conclusion that with continuous sym-
ematically admissible as follows: metric parabola, the kinematically admissible velocity field
At entrance in zones II and III: substituting is creatively proposed in edge rolling [17].
x = 0, vx = v0, Bx = 0, and hIIx = hIIIx = h0 into Eqs. (22)
and (23) yields
3 Deformation power
vzIII |x=0,z=w0 = −v0 tan α0 = −vR sin α0 ,
(24)
3.1 MY yield criterion

vyIII  x=0,y=0
= 0, vzII |x=0,z=w −3A = 0.
E

At exit in zone II and III: substituting x = l and tan α = 0 MY yield criterion [18] is short for mean yield criterion,
into Eqs. (22) and (23) gives which is arithmetic mean of Tresca and Twin shear crite-
rions. From Fig. 5, the geometric representation of the cri-
vzIII |x=l,z=wE = vzII |x=l,z=wE −3A = 0, terion on the π-plane is equilateral and non-equiangular
 (25)
vyIII x=l,z=w = vzII |x=l,z=wE −3A = 0.
E
dodecagon.
MY criterion’s specific plastic power can be expressed
At interface, when z = wx it results in as follows[19]:

vzIII 

vzIII  −v0 tan α dwx dz 4σs
= = = wx′ = = . D(ε̇ij ) = (ε̇max − ε̇min ). (27)
vx z=wx
 v0 z=wx
 v0 dx dx 7
In the equation above, the plastic deformation power
(26)
per unit volume is shown as D(ε̇ij ), while ε̇max and ε̇min
Which shows that Eq. (26) satisfies differential equation are maximum and minimum strain rate in deformation,
of streamline at interface, namely, satisfies steady rolling respectively.
condition.
Based on Eqs. (22) and (23), the boundary conditions are 3.2 Deformation power
verified, Eqs. (20) and (21) satisfy Cauchy equation. Based
on the discussed above, ε̇x + ε̇y + ε̇z = 0 is yielded. Then, Substituting Eqs. (20) and (21) into Eq. (27), and integrat-
Eqs. (20)–(23) are verified to be kinematically admissible. ing it yields

  
16σs l wE −3A+Ax  hII(x,z)  l wE −3A+3Ax  hIII(x,z)
Ẇi = (ε̇max − ε̇min ) dy dz dx + (ε̇max − ε̇min ) dy dz dx
7 0 wE −3A 0 0 wE −3A+Ax 0
 
32σs h0 v0 2403 1176 294 (A20 − A2 )
= A0 ε − (A0 − A) +
7 605 605 605 A0 (28)

13
 J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.


wE −3A+A0 h0
  
2
C 2  2 

Mises
Ẇs1 = 4 k vyII  + vzII x=0
dy dz
wE −3A 0 x=0
Twin shear

wE −3A+3A0  h0
 
Tresca B

2 2  2 

s
MY locus equilateral + k vyIII  + vzIII x=0
dy dz
3 non-equiangular wE −3A+A0 0 x=0
o B
dodecagon
v0 tan α0
where vyII x=0 = vyIII x=0 =
 
F 3A0 y, vzII |x=0 = vzIII |x=0
E 0 +3A0 )
= − v0 tan α0 (z−w
3A0 .
3 1 According to mean value theorem of integrals, the above
A
equation can be expressed as:
A
 1
 w0  h0 v0 tan α0 y
Fig. 5  MY loci in the π-plane v̄y x=0 = dy dz
(�w + 3A)h0 wE −3A 0 3A0
h0 v0 tan α0
= (31)
6A0
where ɛ  = ln (A0/A) is true strain reduction for one pass.
Δw  =  w0  −  wE absolute reduction, Δw  + 3A width at
entrance in zones II and III. It can be seen that Eq. (28) is
 w0
1 v0 tan α0 (z − w0 + 3A0 )
an analytical solution for internal deformation power which v̄z |x=0 = − dz
�w + 3A wE −3A 3A0
is a function of σs, ε, and geometric parameters of roll and 3v0 tan α0 A0 v0 tan α0
slab. When geometric parameters are given, Ẇi increases =− =− (32)
2(�w + 3A) 2
with increasing ε and σs.
At interface
√ of roll and slab friction, stress is
τf = mσs / 3, discontinuous quantity of tangential velocity 
wE −3A+3A0 h0 h0 2
   
 
tan α0 v0
is vf = vy2 + vt2 , and friction factor is m, taking aver- Ẇs1 = 4k 1+ dy dz
wE −3A 0 2 3A0
age thickness of the roll–slab interface h̄r, and using vector 
inner product, friction power becomes h0 2
 
6σs
= √ A0 h0 v0 tan α0 1 + (33)
  3 3A0
3�w
h̄r = h0 1 + ,
22A tan α
noticing that �vyII z=w −3A = v03A y, shearing power

E 0
consumed at surface between zones I and II is
 
 h̄r v0 9 2 (A0 − A)
v̄y z=w = ln (A0 /A) + ,
x 2l 11 11 A0
 l h0  l h0
v0

R+l

v0 tan α
�v̄t = vR − ln , Ẇs2 = �vy dy dx = y dy dx
2α0 R−l 0 0 0 0 3A0
 l  h̄r  l  h̄r   (A0 − A)v0 h02
Ẇf = 4 τf �vf ds = 4 τf vy2 

+ �vt2 ds. = . (34)
0 0 0 0 z=wx 2A0
(29) Then, total power is obtained by summing as:
dxdy
Substituting ds = cos α , dx = −R cos αdα into Eq. (29),
φ = Ẇi + Ẇf + Ẇs1 + Ẇs2 . (35)
it becomes
Partial derivatives of Eqs. (28), (30), (33), and (34) with
respect to A calculated are as follows:
  � � �2 −1/ 2
vy �z=w

4σs mh̄r Rα0  x
Ẇf = √ �vt 1 + 
�vt
  
3  ∂ Ẇi 32σs h0 v0 2403 A − A0
= ln (A0 /A) +

 ∂A 7 605 A
 � � �−2 −1/ 2   
vy z=w
�  294 2AA0 − A2
(30)
� x
+ vy �z=w 1 + . + 1−
(36)

x �vt 
 605 A20

 
Shearing powers at entrance and surface between zones ∂ Ẇf 4σs mRα0 
= √ f h̄r′ , vy′  (37)

I and II are shown as follows: ∂A 3 z=wx

where:

13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.

�  � �2 �−1/ 2 � 
�−2 �−1/ 2  � � �−3/ 2 � � ′
v̄y 2 v̄y
� � � � �
�  v̄y v̄y v̄y
f h̄r′ , vy′ � ′
= h̄r vt 1 + + v̄y 1 + + h̄r {−v̄t 1 +
�
z=wx  v̄t v̄t  v̄t v̄t v̄t
� �−2 �−1/ 2 � �−2 �−3/ 2 � ��
v̄y′
� � �−3
v̄y v̄y v̄y
+ v̄y′ 1+ + v̄y 1 + . (38)
v̄t v̄t v̄t v̄t

′
3.3 Experiments
 
In Eq. (38), h̄r′ and v̄y z=w can be shown as:
x

−3h0 �w −2 � �� �′ h̄′ v0 Using copper and aluminum, the real edge rolling was con-
h̄r′ = A , v̄y z=w = r ducted. The sizes of the materials were 300 mm-long and
22 x 2l
�
9 � � � 2 (A0 − A)
� 60 mm-wide. The diameter of the mill was 100 mm.
ln A0 A +
11 11 A0
� � 3.4 Results and discussion
h̄r v0 9(A − A0 ) 2 (A0 − A)
+ −
2l 11AA0 11 A20 To test the accuracy of Eq. (41), the calculated results by
∂ Ẇs1 6σs h0 v0 tan α0 Eq. (41) are compared with those in [4]. With the same
= √ geometric, friction conditions, and same shear yield stress
∂A 3
�  from Table 1 [4], rolling forces calculated by Eq. (41) for
�2 �1/ 2 � �2 �−1/ 2 2 three group materials are shown in Figs. 6, 7, and 8, and
� �
 h0 h0 h0 
1+ − 1+
 3A0 3A0 (3A0 )2  each power distribution in Fig. 9.
Figure  6 shows rolling force increases with increas-
(39) ing ɛ when h0/w0 and m are given. Since the increasing

∂ Ẇs2 A − A0 Table 1  Experiment materials

= v0 h02 . (40)
∂A 2A20
Materials Thickness (mm) Shear yield stress (MPa)
Series and polynomial expansions are used as an approx- Cu 6 181
imation for above solution, they are Cu 8 217
    Al 6 170
�w �w R+l 1 + l/R 2l
ε = ln 1 + ≈ , ln = ln ≈ ,
3A 3A R−l 1 − l/R R
√  
− 3 ∂ Ẇi ∂ Ẇs1 ∂ Ẇs2
m=   + + . 4
4.5x10 Aluminum h0=3mm
∂A ∂A ∂A

4Rσs α0 f h̄r′ , vy′ 

z=wx Copper h0=4.2mm
4
4.0x10 Copper h0=3.13mm
With minimum of the total power, the rolling force is
Rolling force, N

4
3.5x10
obtained as
4
∂φmin 3.0x10
= 0, φmin = 2Mω = 2Pχld ω,
∂A 4
2.5x10
φmin
P= . (41) 4
2.0x10
2χld ω
In the equations above, rolling torque is described as 4
1.5x10
0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070
M. P is the rolling force in edge rolling. The rolling force
arm is ld. In addition, to be similar to real conditions, the
arm factor χ is set [4] as 0.5. In this paper, ω is the angular Fig. 6  Rolling force calculated by the model with different ɛ, when
velocity. w0 = 30 mm and m = 0.6

13
 J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.

ɛ intensifies deformation and rises the rolling forces. It

4.5x10
4 Aluminum wE=27.5mm =8.3%
can also be seen that when h0 is almost the same, forces
Copper wE=28.9mm =3.6%
increase with increasing yield stress.
4.0x10
4 Aluminum wE=28.9mm =3.6%
Figure  7 shows rolling force increases with increas-
Rolling force, N

4
ing h0/w0 for various reductions. It means when h0 rises,
3.5x10
increasing contact surface results in deformation zone to be
4
lager. In this way, more forces will be calculated.
3.0x10
Figure 8 shows that rolling forces increase with ratio of
4
roll radius and initial width. A reasonable interpretation
2.5x10
is the length of the bite zone increases with increasing R.
4
When R is larger, the length of the deformation zone will be
2.0x10
larger as well. This will need more forces to let the defor-
0.092 0.094 0.096 0.098 0.100 0.102 0.104 0.106 0.108 mation occur. Figure 9 shows internal deformation power
h0/w0 calculated by Eq. (41) is about 76.91 %, while other pow-
ers are also shown in the pie chart with the percentages, in
Fig. 7  Rolling force calculated by the model with various h0/w0 and which internal deformation power is obviously the biggest
m = 0.6 composition in the total power.
As seen in Fig. 10, for the purpose of proving the results
4 calculated by Eq. (41), measured and calculated results by
3.4x10
Aluminum h0=3.125mm wE=28.775mm Lundberg and Duckjoong are all shown out. From Fig. 10,
3.2x10
4
Copper h0=4.2mm wE=29.35mm calculated forces by Eq. (41) are little lower than those
Copper h0=3.125mm wE=28.9mm calculated by the other two models, but it can be seen that
3.0x10
4
Eq. (41) may be more suitable for describing the value of
forces in some situations.
Rolling force, N

4
2.8x10 Figure 11 also shows the rolling forces change with var-
4 ying m. That can be seen clearly, friction impacts on rolling
2.6x10
forces complicatedly. When m is small, the rougher contact
2.4x10
4 surfaces will make rolling forces lower. However, when m
is large, the variation of rolling force will have a reverse
2.2x10
4
rule.
Upper bound continuous velocity field with continu-
4
2.0x10 ous symmetric parabola dog-bone shape is used in anal-
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2
R/W0 ysis edge rolling. A method [4] was proposed, but there
are still some shortcomings [20] to be pointed out in S.-E.
Lundberg’s experiments. For example, no matter what
Fig. 8  Rolling force calculated by the model with various R, h0/w0,
and m = 0.6 materials were rolled with the same mills, copper or alu-
minum, the friction factors all are taken as 0.6 [4]. Then,
those experiments were carried out in room temperature
. [21, 22]. That is different from the real working condi-
Wi
. tions which are in hot rolling process. In addition, experi-
Wf mental roller diameter (100 mm) was not equal to 300 mm
.
Ws1 diameter in Duckjoong’s model [5]. All these mentioned
. 10.69% above may make the results calculated by the two tradi-
Ws2
tional models a little higher. At the same time, the forces
calculated by Eq. (41) are focused on the edge of the
76.91% 9.38% materials. The plastic deformations are occurred in zone
3.02%
II and III, as shown in Fig. 4. On the contrary, there is no
deformation in zone I. This assumption may induce the
total power be lowered. However, as mentioned before, it
Fig. 9  Power distribution for copper one-pass rolling: can be regarded as more suitable to describe the edge roll-
h0 = 3.13, wE = 28.85 (mm), m = 0.6, and ɛ = 3.8 % ing force.

13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.

Fig. 10  Rolling forces meas-

ured and calculated by different 4
3.5x10
models Copper h0=4.275mm,wE=29.45mm
4 Copper h0=4.3mm,wE=29.45mm
3.0x10

Rolling force, N
Copper h0=4.2mm,wE=29.35mm
Copper h0=4.2mm,wE=29.2mm
4
2.5x10 Copper h0=3.095mm,wE=28.925mm
Copper h0=3.125mm,wE=28.9mm
Copper h0=3.13mm,wE=28.85mm
4
2.0x10 Copper h0=3.1mm,wE=28.725mm
Aluminum h0=2.975mm,wE=29.25mm
4
Aluminum h0=3.025mm,wE=28.775mm
1.5x10
Aluminum h0=3.05mm,wE=27.625mm

Measured Lundberg's model Equation 41 Duckjoong's model

4
3.2x10
2. Moon CH, Lee Y (2009) Methodology for draft schedule design
of plate rolling process with peening effect considered. Proc
4
3.1x10 Copper h0=3.13mm wE=28.85mm w0=30mm
IMechE Part B J Eng Manuf 223:1159–1169
4
3.1x10 3. PloTnikov PK (2010) Friction-force model for a ball with
displacement of rolling on a rough surface. Dokl Phys
4
3.0x10 55:287–291
Rolling force, N

4
3.0x10 4. Lundberg S-E, Gustafsson T (1993) Roll force, torque, lever arm
4
coefficient and strain distribution in edge rolling. J Mater Eng
3.0x10 Perform 2:873–888
4
2.9x10 5. Duckjoong Y, Donghun L, Jaeboo K (2012) A new model for
4
the prediction of the dog-bone shape in steel mills. ISIJ Int
2.9x10 52:1109–1117
4
2.8x10 6. Deng W, Zhao DW, Qin XM (2010) Linear integral analy-
4
sis of bar rough rolling by strain rate vector. J Iron Steel Res
2.8x10 17(3):28–36
4
2.7x10 7. Biboulet N, Houpert L (2010) Hydrodynamic force and moment
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 in pure rolling lubricated contacts. Part 2 point contacts. Proc
m IMechE Part J J Eng Tribol 8(224):777–787
8. Byon SM (2013) Study of side guide to reduce top and tail
camber in hot roughing rolling. Trans Korean Soc Mech Eng
Fig. 11  Rolling force with various m in the model
37(2):205–212
9. Liu YM, Ma GS, Zhang DH (2015) Upper bound analysis of
rolling force and dog-bone shape via sine function model in ver-
4 Conclusions tical rolling. J Mater Proc Technol 223:91–97
10. Wang HY, Wang ZH, Zhang DH (2015) Analysis of snake roll-
1. Focused on edge rolling process, strain rate and veloc- ing force and torque with changes of thickness depending on
unequal roll radii based on pure aluminum experiments. Proc
ity fields are innovatively established based on continu-
IMechE Part C J Mech Eng Sci (online published)
ous symmetric parabola dog-bone shapes. With math- 11. Wang HY, Ding JG, Lu X (2015) Analysis of ultra-heavy plate
ematical functions, the engineering problems can be rolling force based on thickness temperature gradient elements
solved more easily and theoretically. and experiment simulations. Proc IMechE Part C J Mech Eng
Sci (online published)
2. With minimizing the deformation power, the rolling
12. Wang HY, Zhang DH, Zhao DW (2015) Analysis of asymmetri-
force is obtained. The special rolling force formula cal rolling of unbonded clad sheet by slab method considering
of the edge rolling can be more suitable for this local vertical shear stress. ISIJ Int 55:1058–1066
deformation process. 13. Li X, Wang HY, Ding JG (2015) Analysis and prediction of fish-
tail during V-H hot rolling process. J Cent South Univ Technol
3. Based on the comparing with those calculated by previ-
22:1184–1190
ous models and measured in real experiments, the results 14. Jahangardy Y, Rostamipour M, Dolatabadi AS (2012) Determin-
calculated by the model in this paper are verified. Though ing structural defects in hot strip rolling mills by analyzing roll-
the forces are a little lower, but are in good agreement. ing force fluctuations. Steel Res Int 29(04):107–110
15. Loizou N, Sims RB (1953) The yield stress of pure lead in com-
pression. J Mech Phys Solids 4:234–243
16. Baines K (2001) Lead as a model material to simulate mandrel
References rolling of hot steel tube. J Mater Process Technol 118:422–428
17. Marshall JS (2014) Torque on a rolling particle in the pres-
1. Takeo G, Takubo T, Ohara K (2010) Internal force control for ence of a liquid film at small capillary numbers. Chem Eng Sci
rolling operation of polygonal prism. IEEE Int Conf Rob Bio, pp 108:87–93
586–591

13

18. Zhang SH, Song BN, Wang XN (2014) Analysis of plate rolling
by MY criterion and global weighted velocity field. Appl Math
Model 38:3485–3494
19. Zhang SH, Gao CR, Zhao DW (2013) Limit analysis of defect-
free pipe elbow under internal pressure with mean yield crite-
rion. J Iron Steel Res 20(4):11–15
20. Yuan G, Wang J, Xiao H (2011) Research on online model of
vertical rolling force in hot strip roughing trains. Adv Mater Res
145:198–203
13
J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng.
21. Mei RB, Li CS, Liu XH (2012) Heat transfer coefficient
prediction by FEM in the hot strip rolling. Adv Mater Res
415:1391–1404
22. Ren R, Zhang XP (2013) Study on short stroke control in
roughing stage of continuous hot strip rolling. Adv Mater Res
712:569–574