MODEL-BASED OPTIMISATION AND CONTROL OF THE HOT-ROLLING PROCESS FOR THE

DESIGN OF STEEL MICROSTRUCTURE

Miguel Angel Gama and Mahdi Mahfouf

IMMPETUS (Institute for Microstructural and Mechanical Process

Engineering: The University of Sheffield)
Department of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering
The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK

Abstract: A new integrated approach to carry-out advanced optimisation and control of

the hot-rolling of steel is presented. The proposed design includes two stages: (1)
OPTIMISATION: Genetic Algorithms and physically-based models describing the
kinetics of dynamic microstructural behavior are used, along with an optimisation
criterion, to set-up the optimal rolling schedule; (2) CONTROL: advanced control
strategies, including Model-based Predictive Control, are used to guarantee the optimal
performance of the mill during the rolling process. The overarching aim of this research
work is to integrate knowledge about both the stock and the rolling process to find
optimal hot-deformation profiles and achieve the desired final steel microstructure and
properties. Copyright © 2007 IFAC
Keywords: Steel Manufacture and Industry, Predictive Control, Genetic Algorithms,
Optimisation.

1. INTRODUCTION understanding of the material behavior but also the

The development of optimal design and control
methods for steel-making processes is needed for
improving metal quality, reducing costs and
producing specified properties on a repeatable basis.
The quality of steel depends on the properties
associated with its microstructure, that is, on the
arrangements, volume fraction, sizes and
morphologies of the various phases of transformation
with a given composition in a given processed
condition (Krauss, 2004). Each type of
microstructure and product is developed to
characterize property ranges by specific processing
routes that control and exploit microstructural
changes. Thus, processing technologies not only
depend on microstructure but are also used to tailor
final microstructures (Brandon, 1999). Existing
design methods are generally ad hoc and lack
adequate capabilities for finding effective process
parameters such as rolling speed, temperature,
amount of deformation, number of rolling passes,
etc. Usually, the selection of the mill set-up is a
demanding task that requires not only the
knowledge about the mill’s limitations during rolling.
On the other hand, it is known that there exist a
strong correlation between the hot-deformation of
steel and its microstructure and final properties
(Honeycombe, 1995).
In a model-based design, the model is at the centre of
the development process, from analysis and design to
implementation and testing. There have been a few
attempts to optimise steel microstructures using
control theory principles and expert systems
(Venugopal, et al., 1997; Dixit and Dixit, 2000). In
this work, a new model-based approach to optimise
the scheduling and control of the hot-rolling process
is proposed. It is carried-out through two main
stages. The first stage consists of optimising the
rolling schedule according to the desired final
microstructure and properties. The optimisation uses
three basic components for defining and approaching
the problem: (1) the stock model; (2) the optimality
criterion; and (3) the process constraints. Genetic
Algorithms (GA) are used to solve the optimisation
problem.
 (a)
Fig. 1. (a) Hot-rolling mill at The University of Sheffield; (b) Hot-rolling of steel; (c) Model-based integrated
system for microstructure optimisation and control.
In the second stage, the mill carries-out the rolling
schedule using advanced control strategies such as
Model-based Predictive Control (MPC) to guarantee
optimal process performance when applying the
deformation profile. Thus, the knowledge integration
of both the stock and the rolling mill allows one to
achieve optimal scheduling and control of the whole
process on a repeatable basis for different steel
microstructures and properties.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2
presents the general view of the proposed integrated
system describing the optimisation methodology, the
physically-based model of the C-Mn steel alloy and a
description of the self-tuning predictive controller
implemented in the mill. Sections 3 present the
results from a real-time hot-rolling experiment.
Finally, concluding remarks and further work
relating to this overall study are presented in Section
4.
2. THE INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR
OPTIMISATION AND CONTROL
An experimental laboratory-scale hot-rolling mill
(Fig. 1), located in the Department of Engineering
Materials at Sheffield University, is used as part of
the research undertaken by IMMPETUS1, which falls
into the investigation of steel and aluminium
microstructure evolution in hot-rolling. Fig. 1(c)
depicts the block diagram of the model-based
integrated system for microstructure optimisation
and control of the hot-rolling process. Under this
framework, one first specifies the desired
microstructure and the initial conditions of rolling;
then, by using thermomechanical and physically-
based models, knowledge integration of both the
rolled stock and the mill is used (1) to perform a GA-
based optimal search to find the rolling schedule for
a particular microstructure and, (2) to control the
rolling process by using model-based predictive
1 quantitative elements within “feasible” processing
Institute for Microstructural and Mechanical
Engineering: The University of Sheffield.
(b) (c)
control. As a result, a “right-first-time” design and
production of different alloy microstructures can be
achieved. Also with this approach, production times
and costs are reduced compared to those obtained by
current methodologies which lack adequate
capabilities for finding effective rolling schedules.
As shown in Fig.1(c), the rolling schedule is set-up
based on microstructure models of the rolled material
and not via empirical assumptions.
It is worth noting that only quantitative parameters of
the microstructure are considered in the optimisation.
These parameters, for example grain size or
dislocation density, are critically related to the alloy
mechanical properties. Indeed, the refinement of the
grain size provides one of the most important
strengthening routes in steels; the finer the grain size,
the higher the resulting yield stress and, as a result,
increased strength is obtained (Brandon, 1999) . The
unique feature of grain size strengthening is that it is
the only strengthening mechanism which also
increases toughness (Honeycombe, 1995). For the
above reasons, special attention to the refinement of
the grain size as a main parameter of the
microstructure has been given in this work.
2.1. The Optimisation of the Rolling Schedule
The scheduling problem is treated here as an
optimisation problem which minimizes the error
between the desired microstructure and the final
microstructure in terms of its quantitative
characteristics. The design approach requires three
basic components: the stock model, the process or
physical constraints present both in the stock and in
the mill, and the optimality criterion represented by
an “objective” function. The stock model describes
the microstructure evolution of the material during
hot-rolling. Constraints include the limitations of the
forming process and the hot workability of the stock.
Optimality criteria are related to achieving a
particular final microstructure in terms of
Process
windows for hot deformation. The optimisation
problem is solved by using Genetic Algorithms
which are known to be a powerful evolutionary
methodology to solve a variety of optimisation
problems, including those in which the objective
function is discontinuous, nondifferentiable,
stochastic, or highly nonlinear (Kalyanmoy, 2001).
The Stock Model. Although this strategy attempts to
be applied to a wide range of steel alloys, consider
the case of the physically-based model of the C-Mn
alloy, for which the microstructural state is defined
mainly in terms of the grain size and the percentage
of recrystallised material (Sellars, 1980). The
statically recrystallised grain size (drex) can be
expressed using the following system equations:
d rex = 0.5d 00.67 ε −1.0 (ε < ε )
*
(ε ≥ ε )
(1)
d rex = 1.8 × 10 3 Z −0.15 * design solution, the optimality criterion is formulated
where ε * = 2.8 × 10 −4 d 00.67 Z 0.15 , d0 is the initial
grain size ε is strain, ε& is strain rate and Z is the
Zener-Hollomon parameter given by the following
expression:
Z = ε& exp(312000 / 8.31T ) (2)
where T is the deformation temperature. The volume
fraction recrystallised (χ) is calculated according to
the following system equations:
[
χ = 1 − exp − 0.639(t / t 05 )2 ]
.
(ε < ε c )
(3)
χ = 1 − exp[− 0.639(t / t 05 )] (ε ≥ ε c )
where ε c = 3.92 × 10 −4 d 00.5 Z 0.15 , t is time in
seconds and t50 is time for 50% static
recrystallisation.
When recrystallisation is complete, further grain
growth may take place even in the relatively short
time available between passes. The time dependence
of grain growth may be represented by the following
equation:
gg = d rex + 1.19 × 10 t exp(− 567800 / 8.31T )
d 10 10 39
(4)
The above equations clearly show a high degree of
sensitivity of microstructure to the operating
conditions during rolling. Therefore, the determining
variables during the whole process are mainly
characterized by the deformation temperature (T),
strain ( ε ) and strain rate ( ε& ), that is the deformation
profile. However, for the vast majority of steels, the
evolution of the grain size through the different
phases defines the final microstructure and
mechanical properties. In this case, ferrite grain size
is a very important factor when defining mechanical
properties such as Lower Yield Strength (LYS) and
Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS). The transformation
from austenite to ferrite can be expressed by the
following formula (Pickering, 1978):
⎧⎪ −0.5 ⎫
)]⎪⎬(1 − 0.45 ε )
⎛ dT ⎞
d α = ⎨ a + b⎜ ⎟ [ (
+ c 1 − exp − 0.015d γ
⎪⎩ ⎝ dt ⎠ ⎪⎭
(5)
where dα and dγ are the grain size in the ferrite and
austenite phase respectively, dT/dt is the cooling rate
during transformation, ε is the strain in austenite, a,
b, and c are material constants for the C-Mn steel
alloy. Although the above models were determined
on the basis of very few data, they have proven to be
robust and form the basis of many such models that
have been since developed.
The Optimality Criteria. To find the most appropriate
as a series of “objective” functions to be minimized
in order to obtain the specified microstructural
features (Venugopal, et al., 1997). The objective
functions are lumped together into a single scalar
optimality criterion (JM) in the following form:
J M = J 1F + J 2F + L + J NF (6)
where,
J iF = β i ( x − x d ) 2 i = 1,2, K N (7)
where the superscript F refers to the requirements on
the desired final states of the microstructure. βi is a
weight factor that scales various terms of JM to
express priorities in the overall criterion. In this case
a quadratic cost-function is used when it is desirable
that a microstructure feature x achieves a value xd at
the termination of the deformation process. In this
case, the optimisation problem can be defined as
follows:
Minimize J M = (d rex − d rex d ) 2 (8)
Subject to
(i) ω min ≤ ω i ≤ ω max i = 1,2, K , n
(ii) %rmin ≤ %ri ≤ %rmax i = 1,2, K , n
(iii) Pi ≤ Pmax i = 1,2, K , n
where ω, %r and P is the rolling speed, percentage of
reduction, and rolling torque respectively; n is the
total number of passes. These process parameters are
very important because they define the boundaries of
the feasible solution space for the optimisation
problem. It is clear that other constraints can be
considered such as rolling power or exit thickness.
The rolling speed, reduction, and rolling torque are
calculated by the following equations:
60Vr
ω= (9)
2πRr
 ⎡ ⎛ ε 3 ⎞⎤ Begin
%r = ⎢1 − exp⎜ ⎟⎥ × 100 (10)
⎢⎣ ⎜ 2 ⎟⎥
⎝ ⎠⎦ pass = 1

and Set initial conditions for

the rolling pass:
P = f (T , ω ,%r , kH , kF ) (11) Stock dimensions
Initial Temperature
Initial grain size
dtarget = ddesired
In equation (9) Vr = ε& Rr ∆h / ε , and represents the
peripheral roll speed; Rr is the roll radius, and ∆h the Set Grain Size
target
decrement in thickness. In regards to the rolling dtarget
torque, it is represented by a nonlinear relationship of
the operating conditions, the heat transfer coefficient Initialize
(kH), and the friction coefficient (kF) between the population
T , ε , ε&
roll and the stock. In this work an artificial neural Genetic
network is used to model such relationship (see gen = 1
Algorithm
Yang, et al., 2003).

GA Optimal Search. GA begins its search with a Model evaluation

& constraints
Assign fitness

random set of solutions representing the deformation

profile, i.e. values for T, ε and ε& . Each solution is
evaluated using the stock model (equations 1-4); then No
constraint violations are obtained by calculating the gen = gen +1 JM min? Reproduction

process parameters (equations 9-11); finally the

Yes
objective function value (i.e. assigning a fitness Crossover

value to the solution) is calculated using equation Mutation

(8). This process is carried-out until GA finds the
minimum of the objective function. Fig. 2 shows a
flow chart indicating the process of searching for the
optimal rolling schedule.
Grain Size No Scale Grain Size
target achieved target
As shown in Fig. 2, the initial assumption is that the drex ≈ dtarget? dtarget = α·dtarget
desired grain size (ddesired) can be achieved only in
one pass. However, for most experiments this is not Yes

the case. For instance, for certain deformation

No
conditions the smallest grain size achievable in one desired Grain
Size achieved pass = pass + 1
pass might be much larger than the desired grain drex ≈ ddesired?
size. In that case, although GA has minimized JM, the
deformation profile given will not lead to the desired Yes

microstructure in one pass so that a new grain size Calculate process

Rolling

target (dtarget) must be provided by multiplying the parameters per pass

Schedule stop

previous target by a scaling factor (α). This

automatically leads to the search and optimisation for
subsequent passes until the desired grain size is
reached.
It is important to mention that in order to obtain the
desired ferrite grain size at the end of rolling, careful
analysis of the phase transformation, cooling rate,
chemical composition and any accumulated strains
prior transformation must be carried-out. In this
work, inverse modeling of equation (5) to obtain the
austenite grain size (ddesired in Fig.2) from the ferrite
grain size was used.
2.2. The Rolling Mill Control
The mill shown in Fig. 1 is a one-stand 50-tons hot-
rolling mill with a maximum torque of 3467 Nm
available in two main work rolls which have direct
contact with the rolled product producing a
sequential reduction in thickness.
Fig. 2. GA-based schedule optimisation
In this case, Model-based Predictive Control (MPC)
is used to guarantee optimal performance at high
rolling speed and during changes in the rolling
direction. It has been shown that the use of MPC in
this application eliminates the problems caused by
conventional PID controllers such as very active
control signal and shaft chattering when working at
high speeds. For a comprehensive description about
the successful real-time implementation of the MPC
algorithm in the rolling mill the reader is referred to
Gama and Mahfouf (2006), and Mahfouf and
Linkens (1998).
At the centre of the mill control is the process model
which is built upon a CARIMA (Controlled
Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average) model
which solves offset problems inherently and because
of its adaptive capabilities, the mill can be used in a
wide range of operating conditions.
The input-output linear discrete-time model can be Leicester Integrated Model for Microstructural
expressed as follows: Evolution in Rolling) was used to simulate the
microstructure evolution during hot-rolling
A( z −1 )∆y (t ) = B( z −1 )∆u (t − 1) + C ( z −1 )ζ (t ) experiments (Beynon and Sellars, 1992).
(12) To evaluate the proposed approach, a series of
computer simulations and real-time hot-rolling
where
experiments were carried-out. Consider the case in
which the aim of the optimisation was to find the best
A( z −1 ) = 1 + a1 z −1 + a 2 z −2 + L + a na z − na rolling schedule to obtain a 10µm ferrite grain size in
B ( z −1 ) = b0 + b1 z −1 + b2 z −2 + L + bnb z −nb a slab of C-Mn steel alloy. After heat treatment, the
initial grain size was assumed to be 260µm. The
C ( z −1 ) = c 0 + c1 z −1 + c 2 z −2 + L + c nc z −nc initial temperature was 1150oC. The initial
∆ = 1 − z −1 dimensions of the rolled stock were 25.4mm
thickness, 25mm width, and 150mm length. The
(13)
optimal solution should not violate the mill
y(t) and u(t) are the measurable output and input of constraints for rolling speed, percentage of reduction,
the plant respectively, and ζ(t) denotes a vector of and rolling torque. The main parameters of both the
uncorrelated sequences of random variables with optimisation and control are shown in Table 1. With
zero-mean and covariance σ. Any time-delay can be this information, the optimisation mechanism led to
absorbed in the structure of the B(z-1) polynomial. the rolling schedule shown in Table 2.
The coefficients a1, a2,…,ana, and b0, b1,…, bnb are
the model parameters, and z is the backward shift Table 1. Main parameters
operator. Usually, the polynomial C(z-1) is not
estimated but replaced by a fixed polynomial T(z-1), Optimisation Control
also known as the observer polynomial. Its
Double
parameters are chosen so that the whole system has Population Type
vector
N1 1
better disturbance rejection properties, and it can Population Size 20 N2 5
compensate for any unmodelled dynamics for the
Initial Population random NU 1
predictions P(z-1) ŷ(t + j). MPC computes the control
Crossover Fraction 0.8 λ 0
action using optimisation of the following cost
function (Clarke, et al., 1987): Function tolerance 1µm na 2
ωmax 40 rpm nb 2

( )
N2 ωmin 10 rpm T(z-1) (1-0.9z-1)2
⎡ −1 2⎤
JC = ∑ ⎢⎣ P( z ) yˆ (t + j ) − w(t + j ⎥⎦ + %rmax 40 P(z-1) (1-0.8z-1)/0.2
j = N1
%rmin 10 Delay 1

[ ]
NU Sampling
∑ (λ ( j )∆u (t + j − 1)2 (14) Pmax 3 kNm
Time
8 ms
j =1
Table 2. Multi-pass rolling schedule; desired ferrite
where ŷ is the predicted output, ∆u is the change of grain size = 10µm
the control action, N1 is the minimum costing
horizon, N2 is the maximum costing horizon, Nu is Pass
Rolling Speed Reduction Temperature
(rpm) (%) (oC)
the control horizon, w represent the future set-point,
λ(j) is the control weighting sequence, and P(z-1) is 1 17 29 1150
inverse model in the model-following context with 2 14 23 1060
P(1) = 1. The minimization of the cost function 3 30 26 975
described in (9) leads to the following projected 4 24 31 893
control increment:

∆u (t ) = g T ( w − Λ ), Λ = [Λ(t + N1 ), K , Λ (t + N 2 )] Fig. 3 shows the computer simulation of the

(15)
where g T is the first row of the matrix
(GdTGd+λ(j))-1, and Gd is the dynamic (step-response)
matrix.
3. RESULTS
A comprehensive simulation platform was developed
to be used as the main tool for experiment design.
Also, software such as SLIMMER (Sheffield
microstructure evolution during this experiment. The
rolling passes were carried-out at 1, 15, 30, and 45
seconds respectively. Following the rolling schedule,
the microstructure evolution during the process was
marked by a series of recrystallisation cycles which
allowed the growing of new grains from the original
unrecrystallised grains. Apart from the above rolling
schedule, the developed optimisation mechanism
gave the following information: cooling rate during
the phase transformation = 3.18oC/s (air cooling);
austenite grain size = 19.8µm (before transformation
to ferrite); and final ferrite grain size = 11.1µm which
is very close to the desired microstructure.
 1200
to obtain a “right-first-time” production and perform

Temp. (oC)
1000
optimal control of the process for different steel
800 microstructures. Further work is being carried-out by
600
300
using Neuro-Fuzzy modelling to link mechanical
properties with microstructure to be included in the
Size (µm)

200
schedule optimal search.
Grain

100

REFERENCES
Frac. Rec. (%)

100

50
0 Rolling." ISIJ International 32(3): 359 - 367.
0 10 20
Fig. 3. Computer simulation of the microstructure
evolution during the experiment
MPC was implemented using a high-speed dedicated
microprocessor with 384kb flash memory for the
algorithm, and 80kb for program memory. The
microprocessor also has a dual-port RAM interface
for communication by a high-speed network
connection offering up to 5Mbit/s data rate. Fig. 4
shows the real-time control of the mill during the
rolling experiment and the final ferrite-pearlite
microstructure at room temperature. The speed
control and regulation were very good, showing good
robustness and stability under all operating
conditions. From the rolling torque measurements, it
could be seen that there was no constraint violation
in any rolling pass. After the experiment, the rolled
sample was cut along the longitudinal and tranversal
axes, polished, and etched with 5% Nital for
microstructural analysis. Grain size measurements
were carried-out using the mean linear intercept
method (Higginson and Sellars, 2003). The final
ferrite grain size was 8.02 µm (Fig. 4b), very close to
the desired microstructure and in good agreement
with the developed optimisation mechanism.
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
An integrated model-based strategy to optimise and
control the hot-rolling process was proposed. The
results obtained using the C-Mn steel alloy showed
that the knowledge integration of both the rolled
stock and the deformation process should allow one
Beynon, J. H. and C. M. Sellars (1992). "Modelling
Microstructure and its Effects during Multipass Hot
30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (s) Brandon, D. (1999). Microstructural Characterization of
Materials. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Clarke, D. W., C. Mohtadi, Tuffs, P. S. (1987).
"Generalized Predictive Control - Part I: The Basic
Algorithm." Automatica 23: 137 - 148.
Dixit, U. S. and P. M. Dixit (2000). "Application of Fuzzy
Set Theory in the Scheduling of a Tandem Cold-Rolling
Mill." Transactions of ASME 122: 494-500.
Gama, M. A. and M. Mahfouf (2006). Speed Control of an
Experimental Hot-Rolling Mill using Generalised
Predictive Control. International Conference Control
2006, Glasgow, Scotland.
Higginson, R. L. and C. M. Sellars (2003). Worked
examples in quantitative metallography, London Maney.
Honeycombe, R. (1995). Steels. Microstructure and
Properties. London, Butterworth - Heinemann.
Kalyanmoy, D. (2001). Multiobjetive Optimisation using
Evolutionary Algorithms, Wiley.
Krauss, G. (2004). Microstructures, Processing, and
Properties of Steels. ASM handbook - Metallography and
microstructures, Materials Park, Ohio. 9: 126 - 137.
Mahfouf, M. and D. A. Linkens (1998). Generalised
Predictive Control (GPC) and Bioengineering. London,
Tylor & Francis.
Pickering, F. B. (1978). Physical Metallurgy and the
Design of Steels. London, Applied Science Publishers
LTD.
Sellars, C. M. (1980). The Physical Metallurgy of Hot
Working. Hot Working and Forming Processes. C. M.
Sellars. London, Metals Society: 3-15.
Venugopal, S., E. A. Medina, Malas, J. C., Medeiros, S.
and Frazier, W. G. (1997). "Optimisation of
Microstructure during Deformation Processing using
Control Theory Principles." Scripta Materialia 36(3):
347 - 353.
Yang, Y. Y., D. A. Linkens, Talamantes, J. (2003). "Roll
Force and Torque Prediction using Neural Network and
Finite Element Modelling." ISIJ International 43(12).

30 18
Rolling Speed (rpm)

Gap Position (mm)

20 16
10 14

0 12
-10 10
-20 8
-30 6
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Time (s) Time (s)
3
Rolling Torque (kNm)

1.5

0 (a)
-1.5

-3

(b)
0 20 40 60 80
Time (s)

Fig. 4. (a) Rolling mill real-time performance; (b) final ferrite-pearlite microstructure