Tribology in Metal Rolling

Keynote Presentation
Forming Group F
John G. Lenard
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Canada

Prepared with the assistance of Professors Altan, Bariani, Bay,

Doege, Geiger, Kals, Kopp, Lange, Schey, Schrnoeckel, Shaw,
Siegert, Tozawa and Weinrnann.

Abstract
The techniques of bulk metal forming and especially flat rolling are reasonably well known. Productivity
and quality improvements are possible by introducing responsive control systems in addition to paying
detailed attention to the events at the surface of contact between the rolled metal and the forming die -
the work roll. The transfer of thermal and mechanical energy is accomplished at that contact.
Examination of the phenomena there form the field of tribology, the study of contacting surfaces in relative
motion. The significant components of tribology in the rolling process are reviewed in the keynote
presentation. Friction, lubrication and heat transfer are considered. Novel approaches to understanding
the tribological mechanisms and fields for further study are discussed.

Keywords: tribology, rolling, steel, aluminium

1. Introduction 2. Economic considerations

A system for rolling of metals includes the metal
being rolled, the rolling mill performing the operation and
the interface between the two where the transfer of
mechanical and thermal energies takes place. Tribology
is defined as the study of contacting surfaces in relative
motion and thus it is the discipline needed to understand
and control the events at the tool/work piece contact.
There are three equally essential parts that make up
tribology. These are dry and lubricated friction, heat
transfer and their result: roll wear and surface defects of
the work piece. Each of these may be studied from the
point of view of tribophysics or tribochemistry by
environmentalists, physicists, chemists, manufacturing,
mechanical or chemical engineers. The objective in the
present review is to examine the mechanical events and
in that context it is appropriate to quote Roberts (1997)
"Of all the variables associated with rolling, none is
more important than friction in the roll bite. Friction in
rolling, as in many other mechanical processes can be a
best friend or a mortal enemy, and its control within an
optimum range for each process is essential. "
Rabinowicz (1995) discusses the various cost
estimates that insufficient understanding or inappropriate
applications of tribological principles may cause. The
Jost Report gave an estimate of f515 million annually.
In the US the estimates indicate losses up to $200 billion
in 1985. The causes of the loss of usefulness of material
objects along with the economic importance of each are
also given. Surface deterioration accounts for some 70%
of the losses. This may be broken up into adhesive wear,
responsible for 25% and abrasive wear, occurring in 20%
of the cases. One may conclude that investment in
research, concerning the fundamental mechanisms of
tribology, may result in very good returns. Czichos'
(1978) comments are still valid at this time, as well. He
estimates that nearly 30% of the energy generated in the
industrialized world is consumed by friction and that the
losses form a significant portion of the gross national
product. While he estimates that I - 2 % of the GNP is lost
because of friction and wear, Rabinowicz (1982) gives a
higher figure of 6%. The review "Tribology in Materials
Processing" by Batchelor and Stachowiak (1995)
underlines these concerns, and suggests that the costs
begin when the ore is extracted from the ground.

While Roberts wrote about friction, it is appropriate to 3. The history of tribolouy

replace the term with "tribology". In what follows, the
state of the art of tribology of metal rolling is discussed.
Justification for the study is given in terms of economic
considerations. The history of tribology is reviewed
briefly. This is followed by a presentation of the
fundamental phenomena of surface interactions: friction,
lubrication and heat transfer and the problems resulting
from their inappropriate applications. Research on friction
and heat transfer in rolling is reviewed, in terms of the
process and material parameters. The interactions of the
mechanisms are examined in addition to an attempt to
provide information, needed when predictive models of
the process are to be employed. New approaches and
suggestions for further research are given last.
Dowson (1979) identifies 3500 B.C. - 30 B.C. in
Mesopotamia and Egypt, showing evidence of the use of
lubricants in rotary and translatory movement. Beef
tallow lubricated chariot wheels in 1400 B.C. Oil in metal
spinning was used in 600 A.D. Leonard0 da Vinci's
studies in the 14th and 15th centuries laid the foundations
of modern tribology. His studies on friction and wear
were the first systematic attempts to understand the
basic mechanisms. The research of Hooke in 1685
concerning rolling friction and the work of Newton in
1687 on viscous flow, which form the bases of the
mechanisms of lubrication, follow.
 The first law of friction was suggested by Amonton in
1699, relating the frictional and the normal forces. The
first evidence of adhesion is in the book of Desaguliers in
1734. Coulombs law of friction was published in a
memoir in 1785 for which he was awarded the Academy
of Sciences Prize.
The pace of research increased in a very significant
manner in the lgth century. Reynolds studied fluid film
lubrication in 1886; Goodman measured the thickness of
the oil film in a journal bearing. Stribeck published the
Stribeck curve, and used it to identify the various regimes
of lubrication. Shortly after the turn of the century the
solution for the Reynolds equation was published by
Sommerfeld. The last chapter of Dowson’s book gives
the details of the development of tribology studies from
1925 to the date of publicatrion. These include advances
in surface topography, dry friction in terms of the
adhesion hypothesis, additives in natural and synthetic
lubricants and solutions of the Reynolds equation. The
book closes with a bibliography of 43 pages.
Dowson (1997) continued his historical review
concentrating on the developments during the 20tA
century. In particular, he mentioned the importance of the
surface force apparatus and the atomic force microscope
in the context of very thin film lubrication. He indicated
the significance of the new experimental techniques by
showing the decreasing observable film thickness during
this century, which has now reached the nanometer.
4. Fundamental phenomena
The phenomena at the surfaces in contact include the
transfer of energy as the result of the actions of normal
and shearing forces and temperature differences. The
nature of the phenomena depends on the thermal,
geometrical, mechanical, chemical and physical
attributes of the surfaces and those of the bulk materials.
It is appropriate to discuss the nature of surfaces first as
this governs subsequent events. This will be followed by
a description of wear, its importance and its mechanisms.
The fundamental ideas governing friction and heat
transfer, causing wear, will follow.
4.1 The nature of surfaces and the real contact area
Batchelor and Stachoviak (1995) write that surfaces
are always rough and contaminated. While complete
removal of contamination may be difficult, it can, at the
very least, be minimized by using neutral cleaners. The
surface roughness, including its waviness and the
superimposed asperities and valleys, cannot be removed
but, depending on the forming/machining process, it can
be minimized or, more importantly, controlled. Some
measure of roughness will always remain and its
behaviour under load is of primary importance. A
schematic view of an interface is shown in Fig. 1,
indicating the asperities, valleys and the potential initial
contact locations.
When the two surfaces approach one-another,
contact occurs only at discrete points, the total area of
which is defined as the true area of contact. Its
magnitude and its deformation under normal and shear
loading are key pieces of information needed to interpret
and understand the tribological mechanisms. One of the
first attempts in analyzing the development of the true
area of contact, using slip line field analysis of the
deforming work piece, was presented by Wanheim
(1973). The actions of the asperities in contact and the
development of models for friction in metal working were
studied by Wanheim et al. (1974) and Bay and Wanheim
(1976). The results were approximated by Gerved
(1985), using exponential functions to analyse metal
forming problems. According to the model the growth of
the real contact area is faster at high shear stresses and
approaches the apparent one at high pressures.
DIE
HARD PHASES
1-5 prn
DISTURBED
ENRlC HED / DEP LE TE D
Figure 1: Schematic view of an interface of two
materials, under some magnification, indicating the
components and potential contact spots (Schey, 1983)
An upper bound approach was given by Wilson and
Sheu (1988), yielding a model, able to predict well the
growth of the true contact area (A,) as a function of the
bulk strain (E):
dE A
-= 8 2IA)dA
dA,, 1’3
where 8 is the asperity slope. Sutcliffe (1999, 2000)
analyzed asperity flattening considering a surface with
two wavelengths which differ by a factor of 10. As well,
the study considered the plastic deformation of the
underlying bulk material, the importance of which has
also been pointed out by Makinouchi et al. (1987). The
evolution of the roughness during cold rolling of stainless
steels, using three-dimensional profilometry, indicated
that the roughness changes fast on entry to the bite.
Siegert and Wagner (1999) used an optical method to
describe surfaces in three-dimensions. Geiger et al.
(1997) and Stancu-Niederkorn et al. (1993, 1994) used
ultrasonics to study frictional mechanisms. Sat0 and 0-
Hori (1982, 1986, 1987) measured surface shapes and
roughness using an SEM. Demkin et al. (1978) used
statistics to analyze rough surfaces.
When contact is made, the phenomena there are
best explained in terms of the adhesion hypothesis
(Bowden and Tabor, 1950) which examines the origins of
the resistance to relative motion in terms of adhesive
bonds formed between the two contacting surfaces that
are an interatomic distance apart. Bowden and Tabor
(1973) credit the French scientist Desaguliers, living and
working in the 18th century, with this idea and reproduce
his account of an experiment with two lead balls which,
when pressed and twisted together by hand, created
adhesive bonds and held a load of nearly 7.3 kg.
 Micro, meso and macro-contacts were defined by between them must be overcome. Cleanliness, needed
Sheu et al. (1998) and the importance of closed and for the adhesion hypothesis to be operative, is obtained
open pores on the surface of the metals was discussed when new surfaces are created, by plastic forming or by
in light of their ability to distribute the lubricant. These machining. The adhesive bonds must be separated if
are shown in Figure 2, below. relative motion is to occur. This separation may take
place at the junction itself or one of the contacting metals
may shear. The weakest component will give. If that is
the work roll, its rate of wear is enhanced. If the work
porous piece gives, surface damage may result. As the load
regions within increases, the asperities flatten and the real area contact
contact approaches the apparent area. The number of contacting
meso-contact
areas asperities grows and as long as no other mechanism is
active, frictional resistance to motion increases, pointing
out the dependence of friction on material properties.

The complexities of these phenomena are evident

when considering the enlarged view of a surface,
prepared by EDM, resulting in a random roughness
direction, see Figure 3.

As will be argued later, increasing loads may lead to

increasing or decreasing coefficients of friction,
depending on the interaction of the parameters.
Formation of the bonds takes time, indicating that the
magnitude of the relative velocity of the interacting
\ meso-contact bodies, as well as the rate sensitivity of their resistance
to deformation, may play important roles in determining
/(b, the magnitude of the frictional forces. Heat is transferred
at the contact points, affecting the mechanical and
thermal properties at the surface. As implied by the
adhesion hypothesis, many of these parameters interact
with and affect each other.

While the adhesion hypothesis is almost universally

accepted, adherents of the Amonton - Coulomb theory
have criticized its validity. Rabinowicz (1995) refutes the
major points that critics of the adhesion hypothesis use in
favour of other explanations of the existence of frictional
resistance to relative motion. These include

the indicated lack of dependence of friction on

Figure 2: A schematic diagram of two surfaces in contact
(Sheu et al. 1998)
surface roughness;
the lack of understanding of how strong bonds form
and deform;
that brittle materials that don't experience plastic flow
still show frictional resistance to relative movement;
and finally,
the magnitude of the stress which should be limited to
the yield strength of the material.

Rough and very smooth surfaces show high

Figure 3: A three-dimensional image of a surface,
prepared by electrical discharge machining (Sheu et al.
1998)
If the surfaces are clean, the atoms are close enough
such that in order to separate them the force of attraction
resistance to motion (Rabinowicz, 1995), albeit for
different reasons. High roughness puts mechanical
constraints to movement while very smooth surfaces are
able to produce a very large number of adhesive bonds.
Of course, surface roughness will play a very significant
role when lubricants are applied, in that it will influence
the way the lubricant is distributed in the contact zone.
As well, the relative magnitudes of the asperity height
and the oil film thickness will determine the nature of the
lubricating regime. Strong bonds form when the plastic
deformation creates the main requirement of the
hypothesis, that the contacting materials be an
interatomic distance apart, by producing fresh surfaces.
The bonds of materials that possess high chemical
affinity will be stronger. Brittle materials deform
plastically when subjected to the high compressive
stresses that exist at the junctions, thus obeying the
adhesion hypothesis. The unexpected magnitude of the
friction force may be explained by the very severe
interaction of the parameters.
4.2 Parameters affecting surface interactions
Researchers define the tribological system in terms of
the process and material parameters (Czichos, 1978;
Schey, 1983). Heat transfer and frictional resistance
depend on surface interactions and are affected by
essentially the same parameters. The best definition is
given by Schey (1983), who identifies the parameters of
the system; that of the roll, the lubricant, the work piece
and the process which work to create the attributes of the
final product. Hydrodynamic, elastohydrodynamic,
plastohydrodynamic, dry, boundary, mixed regimes and
those in which the interaction of the parameters may be
completely different, are identified. The interactions of
the parameters define their effects and these are
indicated, as well.
These interactions are influenced by a number of
parameters, affecting the mechanical and thermal
phenomena at the contact (Bowden and Tabor, 1950;
Rabinowicz, 1965, 1995; Schey, 1983; Baltov and
Nedev, 1995). Process parameters include the
temperature, speed, and the reduction. The stiffness and
dynamic response of the rolling mill also affect tribology.
The roll dimensions, its hardness, surface roughness
and its direction, cooling systems, lubricant delivery
systems, including the locations of nozzles, all contribute
here. Mechanical properties of the rolls and the work
piece, including their resistance to deformation, surface
and bulk hardness, Young's and shear modulus, density
and stored elastic energy as well as the thermo-physical
properties influence the interactions. The contributions of
surface parameters, such as the chemical reactivity, the
tendency to adsorb molecules from the environment, the
adsorption of water vapor and oxygen and surface
energy need to be understood. The nature of scale
formation, the chemical composition of the scale and the
strength of the adhesion between the scale and the
parent metal must be accounted for. Lubricants affect
surface interactions and their properties must be
precisely described. The chemical composition, the
additives and their concentration in the base oil, the
chain length, density, viscosity, viscosity - temperature,
viscosity - pressure coefficients are needed.
In an experiment one should examine the effect of all
parameters on the response of the variable of interest.
While this is desirable, it is not practical to include all of
the above list. Present indications are that the
temperature, the interfacial pressure and the relative
velocity suffice to describe the process. The mechanical,
thermal and surface attributes of the materials, their
geometry and chemical composition are sufficient as the
rest of the controlling parameters. If lubricants are used,
their density, viscosity, temperature - and pressure -
viscosity parameters are to be included.
4.3 The result of surface interactions - roll wear
The consequences of the surface phenomena - roll
wear and product surface defects - are unavoidable.
Understanding their nature may lead to their
minimization. Batchelor and Stachowiak (1995) discuss
the mechanisms of friction and wear. Abrasive wear is
caused by ploughing between the contacting asperities
while repeated contact causes fatigue wear. These
phenomena are not independent and often occur
simultaneously.
Previous studies show that roll wear rates are highest
at temperatures of 850 - 95OoC, which are precisely the
temperatures used in the last of the finishing stands of
hot strip mills. Roll wear is also a function of the load,
sliding length, and the abrasive and corrosive particles in
the cooling water. The low speeds of the roughing stands
in a hot strip mill cause most of the wear. Slippage as a
result of too low friction also causes excessive wear.
The parameters are many and the problem can be
caused by either excessive or diminishing friction. The
problems associated with the wear of forging, extrusion
and drawing dies are similar to that of rolls and as stated
by Painter et al. (1996), die life is shortened by the high
temperatures and high pressures at the contact. Tool life
and quality were considered by Lange et al. (1992),
discussing the factors that influence tool life. Doege et
al. (1994) discussed tool wear in the impression die
forging process and concluded that the replacement of
graphite based lubricants by "white lubricants" is risky.
5. Friction
When an object, in contact with another, is to be
moved relative to the other, some resistance, caused by
the interaction of the two bodies, must be overcome.
Overcoming it requires effort which adds to the total work
expended in starting and maintaining movement. The
coefficient of friction may be expressed as the ratio of the
friction and normal stresses (Coulomb friction) or,
alternatively, in terms of the ratio of the interfacial shear
stress and the yield strength in shear (friction factor).
Batchelor and Stachowiak (1995) write that the most
common cause of friction is elastic and plastic
deformation of the asperities. Solid state adhesion is
ranked as the second most common cause, resulting in
very high coefficients. Viscous drag is identified as the
third, causing low frictional resistance, that is,
hydrodynamic lubrication, see Figure 4.
AsDeritv of harder surface
of trapped wear particle
PLOUGHING,.-/ ~, VISCOUS DRAG
Shearing of
ADHESION Adhesive
deformed
Figure 4: Mechanisms of friction: ploughing, viscous
drag and adhesion (Batchelor & Stachowiak, 1995).
5.1 Determining the coefficient of friction
Several methods for determining or calculating the
interfacial frictional coefficient during plastic deformation
have been developed, some of which have been listed by
Wang and Lenard (1992) and by Schey (1983). Empirical
formulae have also been given, see Marton (1988) or
Roberts (1978). Li (1999) presented several analytical
relations to calculate the coefficient of friction. The inverse
method of calculation is probably the most popular.
5.1.1 Friction modelling
Applying the slipline method for analysis of plastic
deformation of work piece surface asperities in contact
with a smooth tool surface Wanheim and Bay (1974,
1978) proposed a general friction model, Figure 5,
confirming that Coulomb friction is valid at low normal
pressure whereas the friction stress goes towards a
constant value at high normal pressures.
1 f = l .o
f=0.8
f=0.6
f=0.4
f=0.3
f=0.2
f=0.1
I I
0 2 4 6 8 criticism concerns the possibility of some metal intruding
Normal pressure qloo
Figure 5: A general friction model for low as well as high
normal pressure, by Wanheim and Bay (1974, 1978)
They introduced the real friction factor f (0451) acting in
the asperity contacs instead of the coefficient of friction
and proposed the following analytical expression for the
friction stress:
and for q > q*
where the limits of proportionality in friction stress
normal pressure q* are given by:
The approach was applied to model the pressure
distribution in plate rolling and the cross shear plate
rolling process (Christensen, Everfelt and Bay, 1986,
Zhang and Bay, 1997).
5.1.2 Direct measurement methods
The embedded pin - transducer technique:
Originally suggested by Siebel and Lueg (1933) in the
rolling process and adapted by van Rooyen and Backofen
(1960) and Al-Salehi et al. (1973), the method has been
applied to measure interfacial stresses in several bulk
forming processes. Warm and cold rolling were studied
(Karagiozis and Lenard, 1985; Lenard and Malinowski,
1993; Lim and Lenard, 1984); variations have been
presented by Lenard (1990, 1991) and Yoneyama and
Hatamura (1987, 1989). A straingauged cantilever with its
tip in the contact zone, and its refinements were presented
by Banerji and Rice (1972) and Jeswiet (1991, 2000).
Detailed information on the distributions of interfacial
frictional shear stresses and die pressures may be
obtained by these methods, but the setup and the data
acquisition are elaborate and costly. Since the major
into the clearance between the pins and their housing
(Stephenson, 1983), it is necessary to substantiate the
results by independent means. This substantiation has
been performed successfully (Hum et al. 1996).
Determining the average frictional shear stresses
or the average coefficient of friction at the interface:
Methods in this group are plane-strain drawing (Pawelski
1964), plane-strain compression (Nagamatsu et al. 1970).
The twist-compression test has been used by Hansen and
Bay (1986) to measure the friction factor when deforming
aluminium. Theocaris et al. (1983, 1984) used caustics to
evaluate the roll pressure distribution and thus obtain the
coefficient of friction during flat rolling, using lead.
5.1.3 Inverse calculations
In this technique parameters of the process are
determined experimentally. A model, which calculates
these parameters, is used and the coefficient is adjusted
until the measurements and predictions match. The
result is an effective coefficient, which may mask some
phenomena, not accounted for in the model. The more
(3) rigorous the model, the closer the inferred coefficient of
friction may be to the actual value. As well, increasing
the number of measured and calculated parameters to
be matched also increases the predicted accuracy.
Deriving the constant friction factor or coefficient
of friction from the measured deformation load: This
method may be applied to uniaxial compression
(Schroeder and Webster, 1949), extrusion, drawing and
rolling (Evans and Avitzur, 1968).
T* and
Determining the friction factor or the coefficient of
friction by measurements of deformation: These involve
uniaxial compression with a tapered punch (Wang, 1983);
measuring the forward slip or the bite angle in rolling (Reid
(4) and Schey, 1978; Roberts, 1983; Januszkiewicz et al.
1995); monitoring the fold-over in plane-strain compression
(Avitzur and Kohser, 1978); or the extrusion-forging test
(Gunasekera and Mahadeva, 1988). The most popular
technique is the ring compression test (Male and Cockroft,
1964; DePierre and Gurney, 1974). Concave and convex
shapes were used in addition to the cylindrical shapes by
Tan et al. (1998). The shear factor in cold forward bar -
backward cup extrusion was obtained by the upper bound
method and the measured extruded cup height (Sanchez
et al. 1985; Popilek et al. 1992). Lin et al. (1991) used
inverse calculations to infer the magnitude of the
coefficient of friction during cold rolling of steel strips.
An improvement in the inverse method by Gelin and
Ghouati (1994, 1995) by combines the FE simulation of a
process with the measurements of overall parameters,
(Kusiak et al. 1995; Malinowski et al. 1995; Khoddam et
al. 1996; Gavrus et al. 1996) which are compared with
the predictions of the FE method. An error norm is
defined as the vector of distances between the measured
and calculated values. Minimization of the norm leads to
the unknown parameters.
Kopp and Philipp (1992) obtained the coefficient of
friction by examining the bulge on a conical, hollow
cylinder, compressed in between rigid platens. The
emissivity is determined first, followed by the coefficient
of heat transfer and the metal's resistance to
deformation, creating the bulge.
Several formulae have been published relating the
coefficient of friction to various parameters. In cold
rolling the most often used are that due to Hill, quoted by
Hoffman and Sachs (1953), Roberts (1967) and
Ekelund, given by Rowe (1977) in the form of the roll
force in terms of material and geometrical parameters. A
comparison of the predicted magnitudes of the coefficient
of friction is shown in Figure 6, using data obtained while
cold rolling steel strips, lubricated with mineral seal oil.
0.50
15% reduction O + Hill
0.40
C
0 coefficients of friction and heat transfer. The wear rate of
.-
c
0 the rolls may decrease and the need for frequent roll
E 0.30
c
c
0 delivered, the lubricants may also reduce the incidence
C of surface defects. The nature of the lubrication in the
a,
._
.o 0.20 45% reduction
?=
a,
0
0
0.10
0.00 -
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
roll surface speed (mm/s)
Figure 6: The coefficient of friction, by Hill's, Roberts'
and Ekelund's formulae, for cold rolling of a carbon steel
All three formulae give realistic, if somewhat high
coefficients of friction. All predict the expected trend of
lower frictional resistance with increasing velocity. As
well, the coefficient is indicated to decrease as the
reductions increase, demonstrating the combined effects
of the increasing number of contact points, the increasing
temperature and the increasing normal pressures. The
first two phenomena result in increasing frictional
resistance with reduction. The third causes increasing
viscosity and hence, decreasing friction and, as shown
by the data, it has the dominant effect on the coefficient.
The magnitudes vary over a wide range, indicating that
the model influences the results in a significant manner.
Li (1999) gave a relation for the minimum coefficient
of friction, based on Bland and Ford's equations, in terms
of the strain, tensions and the entry thickness:
where CI is a function of the front and back tensions.
5.2 Dry friction
The adhesion hypothesis may be applied directly
when no lubricants are applied. In this case the new,
flattened surfaces of the asperities, created by plastic
deformation, are sufficiently close and surfaces are
sufficiently clean for the bonds to form. When steel is
formed using steel dies, the affinity of the two metals to
one another is high and the bonds thus created may be
quite strong. The affinity of the contacting materials may
not be quite as important a parameter when steel dies
are used to deform other metals. As the reductions
increase, the resistance of the material to deformation
increases, due to strain or strain rate hardening. The
changes in the true area of contact, created by the
deforming asperities, will depend on the ease with which
the metal deforms plastically, indicating that the harder
the metal, the less the asperities will deform.
5.3 Lubrication
The introduction of lubrication - whether neat oils or
emulsions - in the rolling process has several objectives.
Lubricants help to reduce the loads, resulting in lower
energy expenditure. They aid in the production of high
quality surfaces, resulting in a higher value added
product. These are achieved by controlling the
changes may diminish. If properly designed and
contact zone also affects the dimensional consistency of
the product.
5.3.1 Neat oils
Introducing lubricants into the contact zone
increases the complexity of the process. The viscosity of
the lubricant and its pressure and temperature sensitivity
will affect the interactions as will the volume of it entering
or, at least, attempting to enter, the contact zone. As the
relative velocity is increased, more lubricant is dragged in
to coat the surfaces and the coefficient of friction is
decreasing under most circumstances, with most of the
lubricants. As the pressure increases so does the
viscosity and the coefficient of friction falls. Schey (1983)
suggests a power law of the form
(7)
relating the viscosity and the coefficient of friction and
quotes published data giving several values for the
exponent, which in all cases is a negative number,
varying from -0.2 to -0.5.
The magnitude of the dynamic viscosity depends on
the process parameters and is affected mostly by the
temperature and the pressure. Increasing the
temperature lowers the viscosity and results in higher
friction. Increasing the pressure increases the viscosity
and causes lower frictional resistance. Correcting the
viscosity for these effects is necessary if q is to be
evaluated correctly. The relationship often used is:
in units of kPa-' x l o 5 ; the predictions are shown by the
authors to be very accurate. The constant mo is defined
as the viscosity - temperature property, given by the
ASTM slope divided by 0.2. The slope is given by Briant,
Denis and Parc (1989) and the coefficient mo is then
obtained from:

[log Iog(po + 0.7) - log log(p + 0.711

nlo = k.2) (12)
where y is the pressure - viscosity coefficient and the log To - log T
temperature - viscosity coefficient is 6. The uncorrected
viscosity is ~ 0 Sa
. and Wilson (1994) introduced a cross- The pressure - viscosity coefficients, for a number of
coefficient, $ , to account for the interaction of yand b' automotive oils, are given in the Table 1 below.
Information regarding the viscosity - temperature
coefficient may also be extracted from the table by
assuming a linear variation between 40 and 100°C.
Alternatively, the Walther equation may be used,
The interaction of the temperature and pressure effects
provided the constants are available (Booser, 1984):
on the viscosity may well be very significant. However, no
easy way of determining the cross-coefficient appears to be
available at the present time. While values for the log log(p + c) = n - blog T
coefficients are difficult to find for special lubricants, a good
collection of data is presented by Booser (1984, 1997). where a and b are constants, c varies with the viscosity
and p is the kinematic viscosity in centistokes. Details
The sensitivity of the viscosity to changes in surface concerning these constants and their magnitudes are
temperatures is important. During deformation, much of given by the D341 ASTM standards.
the heat is generated at the surface, caused by the
frictional forces. The temperatures can reach very high Booser (1984, 1997) gives specific values of the
magnitudes; simple calculations give 100 - 2OO0C, at not pressure - viscosity coefficient for some automotive
very high speeds and at not very high reductions. At high lubricants, reproduced in Table 1, below.
speeds and high reductions the temperature rise would
be much higher. Lubricant breakdown is a real possibility Table 1
and the processes need to be designed with this in mind. Pressure -viscosity coefficients (Booser, 1984, 1997)
SAE kinematic viscosity viscosity-pressure
Increasing pressures increase the viscosity of oils. Grade (CSt) coefficient
This dependence can be described in terms of an
100°C 40°C (Pa-')
exponential relationship. The viscosity needs to be
1ow 5.57 32.6 2.29 x 10"
corrected to account for the effects of the temperature
and pressure. Values for the coefficients are difficult to
20w 8.81 62.3 2.48 x
find and using the incorrect magnitudes leads to large 30 11.9 100 2.68 x
errors. For example, Yamamoto and Uehori (1989) give 40 14.7 140 2.67 x 10.'
0.07 MPa-l for the pressure - viscosity coefficient and 5W-20~ 6.92~ 38 2.17 x
0.06 "C-' for the temperature - viscosity coefficient. At a 1OW-30 10 2 66 4 236x l o 8
normal pressure of 300 MPa and an oil temperature of 1OW-40 14 4 77 1 225x l o 8
100°C, the viscosity is indicated to increase by 3 . 3 ~06,
1 1OW-50 20 5 117 10
clearly not realistic. The magnitudes given by Booser
(1984) are much lower. The correct magnitudes of the
two coefficients are necessary to plot the Stribeck curve. The oil fi/m thickness: The oil film thickness at the
inlet may be calculated by the formula of Wllson and
For mineral oils, the viscosity - pressure coefficient is Walowit (1971)
given by Hutchings (1992) as:

y x (0.6 + 0.965 log,, q O ) x (10)

where the viscosity at zero pressure, 70,is in centipoise
and the viscosity - pressure coefficient is in Pa-'.
The pressure - viscosity coefficients can also be
calculated following the study of Wu, Klaus and Duda
(1989) who quote the formula of So and Klaus (1980),
giving the coefficient as
where is the dynamic viscosity at 38"C, in Pa s, and y is
the pressure - viscosity coefficient in Pa-'. The radius of the
flattened roll, calculated by the Hitchcock formula, is
designated by R' in m, the roll surface velocity is vror,the
entry velocity of the strip is v e n t ,both in m/s and I stands
for the projected contact length, also in m. The average
flow strength is given by o,,in units that match those of y .

3 0627 5.3.2 Emulsions

y = 1 030+3 509(logp0)
+ 2 4 1 2 ~ 1 0 - ~ 11903(logp0,)'
1i~~ 5976 Use of the emulsion brings in further parameters.
The droplet size, its standard variation within the spray,
0975 0 1162
-3 387(10W"Y P (1 1) its concentration, the emulsifier and its concentration are
involved in the process and in the determination of the
nature of the mechanisms. These are the droplet capture
which depends on the adhesion between the droplets
and the moving surfaces, plate - out, which forms a
uniform oil pool at the entrance to the contact zone and
the dynamic concentration theory.
Emulsions are composed of the oil, the water phase
in which the droplets of oil, with diameters ranging from 1
to 100 pm are dispersed and the emulsifier which keeps
the droplets from coalescing. Emulsifiers are composed
of a molecular structure of two distinct ends. The
hydrophilic end is made of polar covalent bonds and is
soluble in water. The lipophilic end is soluble in oils.
When the emulsion is formed, the hydrophilic groups
orient towards the water phase and the lipophilic
hydrocarbon chains orient towards the oil phase.
Schmid and Wilson (1995) stated that an increase in
oil concentration leads to an increase of the film
thickness. The speed effect on the film thickness is
important. Increasing speeds at first cause a decrease in
the film thickness, followed by gradual growth. Further,
there is no strong correlation between the size of the oil
particles and the thickness of the film as both increasing
and decreasing thickness have been reported with
increasing droplet size. They describe and identify the
lubrication mechanisms that are highly dependent on
speed effects. Among these they mention the plate-out
theory, in which the oil particles provide the lubricating
action, the dynamic concentration of oil, which may occur
at exit and the mixture theory.
Wang et al. (1993) extended the Reynolds equations
of Al-Sharif et al. (1992), for binary mixtures in their
study of cold strip rolling lubrication with ONV emulsion.
Their model predicts several phenomena: oil-pooling,
enhancement of oil pooling with increased yield stress
and with increased roll speed. Among the conclusions:
the pressure coefficient of viscosity is one of the
controlling parameters of lubrication and it affects the
film thickness and the surface traction but it has
negligible effect on oil pooling. An increase in the
reduction ratio enhances oil pooling until the emulsion
acts as pure oil in the conjunction.
Nakahara et al. (1988) used a high-speed camera
and a transparent, translating plate against which a 50
mm stainless steel roll of 0.8 pm roughness was
pressed. Elastohydrodynamic lubrication was studied
and three kinds of droplet behaviour were identified. One
of these penetrates the contact zone while the two
others don't. The minimum size of the particles observed
is just under 50 pm, larger than those found in the flat
rolling process. The authors concluded that as the
velocity increases the number of droplets captured in the
contact zone is decreasing. Both the oil film thickness
and the oil concentration at the entry, where an oil rich
pool was observed, were dependent on the emulsion
concentration. Further, the lubrication mechanisms were
also velocity dependent. In the low speed range the oily
pool at the entry provides the lubrication while at higher
speeds "fine oil-in-water emulsion" leads to the oil films.
As stated by Kumar et al. (1997), the fundamental
problem in the use of emulsions is the behaviour of the
oil particles, the capture of which by the entering strip or
by the roll surfaces is not yet fully understood. The
authors question the applicability of the plate - out theory
to the flat rolling process where the relative speeds are
very much higher than those of Nakahara et al. (1988).
Heshmat et al. (1995) reviewed modeling of friction,
interface tribology and wear for powder lubricated
systems and for solid contacts. The experiments support
the hypothesis that morphological and hydrodynamic
effects work in all interactions and that their respective
ratios differ from regime to regime. They explain what
actually occurs when two solids are rubbed together. The
experimental results made it possible to extend and
generalize the Stribeck curve to include powder
lubrication and limiting shear stress regimes.
Ghosh and Gupta (1998) reported on a numerical
investigation of thermal effects in high speed rolling.
They investigated the viscous shear effect on both film
thickness and rolling friction, assuming fully flooded
lubrication. Results indicated a marked influence of the
viscous shear heating on the load carrying capacity, film
thickness and rolling traction at high rolling speed. Yan
and Kuroda (1997a, b) proposed a model which showed
a velocity difference between the two phases of the
emulsion, causing a variable concentration of the oil
phase in the lubrication film. The pressure distribution
and the concentration of the dispersed phase were
obtained simultaneously. At low entraining speeds the
oil pool is formed in the inlet zone, so the film thickness
is obtained primarily by the oil phase and the film curve is
close to that of the neat oil, but at high entraining speeds,
the increment of oil concentration becomes slow and
both oil and water phases are entrained in the contact
zone. These results agree qualitatively with the
experimental observations of Zhu et al. (1993). Ratoi-
Salagean and Spikes (1997) used specially constructed
equipment to measure the thickness of the films, using
ultrathin film interferometry. The concentration of the oil,
the emulsion viscosity and the particle sizes were varied.
The physical and chemical properties allowed the
authors to identify the critical micelle concentration. They
showed that the tendency of the oil phase to wet the
surfaces reaches a maximum at a concentration below
that critical value. Oil-in-water emulsions lead to a film
thickness like that found with neat oils (Hamaguchi et al.
1977; Wan et al. 1984).
5.3.3 The lubrication regimes
Boundary lubrication is characterized by significant
amounts of metal to metal contact and some lubricating
pockets. The thickness of the film is low and the
asperities pierce through the lubricant. As the viscosity or
the relative velocity are increased, a mixed mode of
lubrication is observed, in which more lubricant pockets
and less asperity contact are found. In these regimes the
surface roughness of the resulting product decreases as
a consequence of the contact and approaches that of the
die. The hydrodynamic regime follows with complete
separation of the surfaces. The lubricant film is thicker
than the combined surface roughness of the die and
plastically deformed work piece. Free plastic deformation
of the surface causes roughening. Further subdivision of
the hydrodynamic regime is possible by identifying
elasto-hydrodynamic or plasto-hydrodynamic lubrication,
depending on the deformation of the asperities, their
resistance to deformation.
It is possible to determine the nature of the lubricating
regime by comparing the thickness of the oil film and the
combined asperity heights of the rolls and the rolled metal.
Their ratio is defined (Hutchings, 1992) as

where h,,, is the oil film thickness by eq. 14 and o* is the
r.m.s. roughness of the two surfaces, given by
and R,i and Rq2 are the r.m.s. surface roughness values of
the two surfaces. When the oil film thickness to surface
roughness ratio is less than unity, boundary lubrication is
present. When 1I A I 3 mixed lubrication prevails while
for a ratio over three, hydrodynamic conditions and full
separation of the contacting surfaces are present.
The Sfribeck curve: The lubrication regimes may be
illustrated by making reference to the Stribeck curve, first
plotted to study friction in the bearings of rail car wheels.
In the Stribeck curve (Hutchings, 1992), the coefficient
of friction is plotted against the modified Sommerfeld
number (Mortier and Orszulik, 1992, identify the
dimensionless group as the Hersey number) defined as:
where the dynamic viscosity is 7, the relative velocity is
d v and p is the pressure. A schematic diagram of the
Stribeck curve is shown in Figure 6, with the boundary,
mixed and hydrodynamic mode of lubrication identified.
Figure 7: A schematic of the Stribeck curve
Enfrainrnenf of fhe lubricanf: The events in the
contact zone are largely influenced by what enters it and
how that entry is achieved. Entrainment of liquid
lubricants has been studied by Pawelski et al. (1994);
see Figure 8 showing a schematic diagram of the entry
region to the roll gap. In general, more lubricant is carried
into the roll gap as the relative speed increases. Bech et
al. (1998) used a transparent tool to observe the escape
of the lubricant, characterized as Micro Plasto
Hydrodynamic and Micro Plasto Hydrostatic lubrication.
Increasing viscosity resulted in hydrodynamic escape as
have increasing speeds. Larger frictional resistance
increased the tendency toward hydrostatic behaviour.
Azushima (1995) observed the contact behaviour to
interpret friction as well as the pressure dependence of
the coefficient of friction. He indicated that the coefficient
drops as the pressure increases. He also developed a
relationship between the measured and the apparent
boundary coefficient of friction. Larger droplets are more
likely to enter the deformation zone (Schmid, 1997).
'stnp surface
surface pockets
hydrodynamic
entrainment
Figure 8: Schematic diagram of the entrainment of a
lubricant into the contact zone (Pawelski et al. 1994)
Once the lubricant is within the deformation zone, its
contribution to affecting the rolling process is directly
dependent on the directionality of the roll roughness. As
shown by Sheu et al. (1998) random roughness direction
leads to the lowest loads on the rolling mill (see also
Figure 13).
Lubricanf cornposifion: Guminski and willis (1959-
60) defined "reduction capacity" as the reduction possible
with a lubricant without surface damage and
demonstrated that it increased with the chain length and
the polarity of the additives. Branched molecules were
found to have a lower reduction capacity than the
straight-chain molecules containing the same number of
carbon atoms. Di-polar additives were shown to have
considerably lower reduction capacity than the
corresponding mono-polar additives.
Kondo (1975) used Kensol 71M and concluded that
the coefficient of friction was much higher with the fatty
acid ester than with the alcohol. Azushima (1978)
concluded that naphthenic oil caused the largest drop in
friction forces, followed by the paraffinic and synthetic
ester base oils. The viscosities of the oils were similar.
The viscosity-pressure coefficients accounted for the
variations of friction. Matsui et al. (1984) used a
paraffinic base oil mixed with three different additives
having the same carbon chain length: lauryl alcohol,
lauric acid and methyl laureate, at a 5% (v/v)
concentration. The most preferable additive for rolling of
pure aluminium was the alcohol. Friction decreased with
increasing chain length.
Ki hara (1990) evaluated the effects on the coefficient
of friction of three additives - butyl laureate, lauric acid,
and lauryl alcohol, at 5% (w/w), in low viscosity paraffinic
base oil. It was noticed that with the alcohol as an
additive the friction was the lowest. With the acid and
ester as additives, the friction was found to be higher.
Nautiyal and Schey (1990) observed that both lauric and
oleic acids were ineffective, even at 5% concentration by
volume, and that only stearic acid was able to lower
friction in a significant manner. Stearyl alcohol, found to
be useless at 1% concentration, gave a significant
improvement at 5% in mineral seal oil.
Mineral seal oil with appropriate additives is useful
when cold rolling of aluminium. Palm oil in an emulsion is
used when steel is cold rolled. Mineral seal oil in water
emulsion may be used when hot rolling aluminium.
Synthetic oil in water emulsion may be used when hot
rolling steel. Emulsifiers and additives are used as
required. Schey (1983), Booser (1984, 1997) and
Laemmle (1992), among others, compile the available
additives. Control of lubrication is the main barrier to
improving productivity and surface quality Wilson (1995).
5.4 Experimental evidence - coefficient of
friction
Low carbon steel strips were cold rolled using various
lubricants (Shirizly and Lenard, 1999). The strips were
rolled dry first, followed by water only as the lubricant.
SAE 10 and SAE 60 oils, the SAE 10 base oil with 5%
oleic acid added and the SAE 10 base oil, emulsified
were then used. The roll radius was 125 mm. The roll
speed of 160 rpm indicates 2.1 m/s roll surface velocity.
--
m
3
0.5
+
+
Lubricants
SAE 10, oleic acid
SAE I 0
5> 0.4-
-m A SAE60
c
0.3- * Water
0
3 data points to draw his conclusions. A different picture
.v
5
0
0.2-
Roll speed = 160 rpm I frictional resistance.
I I
0 20 40
Reduction (“A)
Figure 9: The coefficient of friction; cold rolling low
carbon steel, using neat oils, an emulsion, water only or
no lubricant (Shirizly and Lenard, 1999)
The roll loads were lowered when any of the
lubricants was used in the contact zone. The coefficient
of friction vs. the reduction is shown in Figure 9, above.
6. The dependence of interfacial phenomena on
process and material parameters
The tribological system involves a large number of
parameters, the interaction of which determines the
success of the rolling process. In what follows, a judicial
decision is taken to limit the discussion to only those
parameters deemed most important. The process
parameters in the flat rolling process, of prime
importance, are then taken to be the reduction, the
speed, the temperature and the surface roughness. The
material parameters are the resistance to deformation,
the surface hardness and the parameters of anisotropy.
The effects of some of these on the phenomena at the
roll/strip contact will be considered next. Frequent
reference will be made to the data on the coefficient of
friction, as presented by Rabinowicz (1995) whose
results were obtained using the pin-on-disk machines.
The validity of using that data to metal forming processes
has often been questioned. However, while the
magnitudes of the coefficients of friction are not to be
used in analyzing the rolling process, the trends
indicated are of some interest.
6.1 The effect of the load or the reduction
As the reduction is increased, the loads on the rolled
metal and thus, the roll pressures, increase. The
asperities are flattened and the real area of contact
approaches the apparent area, at a rate that depends on
the contacting metals’ elastic and plastic strengths. The
number of adhesive bonds formed also increases, and
the strength of these bonds will depend on the two
materials, including their chemical affinity for each other.
Using dry and clean surfaces, the frictional resistance will
likely increase. The roughness of the rolled surface will
be reduced with the roll’s surface imprinted on the metal.
Rabinowicz (1995) presents data on the coefficient of
friction, measured using steel sliding on aluminium,
under a large range of loads, from a low of grams to
1000 grams. His data indicates that the coefficient is
independent of the load. These results contradict the
data obtained during unlubricated cold rolling of
aluminium alloy strips using steel rolls (Lim and Lenard,
1984; Karagiozis and Lenard, 1985), in which the
coefficient of friction, measured using an embedded
transducer - pin combination, clearly increased with the
loads. The contradiction is more apparent than real,
however, as Rabinowicz uses a best-fit line through the
emerges when the sliding of copper on copper with no
lubricants is considered (Rabinowicz, 1995), showing a
large change of the frictional resistance as the interfacial
load is increased. Recent experimental studies, obtained
when rolling aluminium strips also indicate that the
reduction, and thus the load, is a significant contributor to
60
The coefficients, reported by Rabinowicz, are
significantly higher than the measurements of
experiments, conducted under actual conditions,
indicate. These reflect the difficulty and the importance of
surface cleanliness, probably not fully achieved in
industry or in the laboratory. Figure 10 shows the data,
plotting the coefficient of friction against the reduction,
obtained using embedded pin-transducer combinations.
Three aluminium alloys were rolled, dry: commercially
pure, in the annealed and half hard conditions and a
5052, containing some more Mg. These alloys are quite
soft and the tendency of the asperities on their surface to
flatten during the rolling process is pronounced. Asperity
flattening and the attendant growth of the adhesive
bonds appear to overwhelm other, contributing
mechanisms.
 0.24
0.20 0 1100-HI4
0 5052-H34
C
0
._
+
0
E 0.16
Lc
0
+
C
a,
._
g 0.12
Lc
a,
0
0
0.08
0.04 , I I I I
0 5 10 15 20 25
reduction (YO)
Figure 10: The dependence of the coefficient of friction
on the reduction during cold rolling of aluminium alloys,
with no lubrication. The roll surface velocity was at 78
mm/s (Karagiozis and Lenard, 1985)
At this point, all one can conclude is that the
coefficient of friction is definitely dependent on the
normal loads. The exact nature of that dependence is not
yet clear, but is likely connected to the attributes of the
contacting materials, their elastic and plastic strength,
roughness, relative velocity, etc. In fact, it is the
interaction of these parameters that will determine the
frictional behaviour of the contacting materials.
Introducing lubricants into the contact surface
changes the reaction of the rolled metal to the reduction,
as indicated above when the Stribeck curve was
introduced. The number of operating mechanisms also
increases. These involve the composition of the oil, the
presence of anti-friction and extreme pressure additives,
its viscosity and its viscosity - pressure and viscosity -
temperature coefficient. During a particular rolling pass
the following competing mechanisms are active:
the rate at which the pressure on the lubricant
increases;
the rate at which the viscosity of the oil
increases, leading to lower friction;
the rate at which the number of contacting
asperities grows, leading to higher friction;
the pressure at which the lubricant layer breaks
up, leading to higher friction;
the relative velocity and the amount of lubricant
drawn into the contact region;
the orientation of the grooves formed by the
asperities, aiding or impeding the spread of the
lubricant within the contact zone;
the growth of the bite angle, leading to more oil
in the roll gap and
the increasing surface temperature with
increasing loads, leading to lower viscosity and
thus, higher friction.
Reference is also to be made to Figure 8, above, in
addition to the data of Lin et al. (1991), which show that
in the majority of cases the coefficient of friction drops
when the reduction is increased, for harder metals. This
observation agrees with that of Azarkhin and Richmond
(1992), who also reported that the limiting case of the
interfacial shear stress equaling the yield strength is not
reached. The mechanisms and their potential
interconnections are shown in Figure 11.
I friction changes with increasing reduction1
I the interfacial pressure increases]
flatten the
bonds to for
contact zone
is harder
to break the
Figure 11: A compilation of the competing mechanisms,
affecting friction in the flat rolling process
6.2 The effect of the velocity
The coefficient of friction drops as the velocity grows
(Zhang and Lenard, 1996) in the boundary and mixed
lubrication regimes. Under hydrodynamic lubrication
frictional resistance increases with relative velocity,
caused by the increasing frictional resistance within the
layer of oil separating the surfaces. Several mechanisms
affect the velocity dependence of frictional resistance.
One is the increase of the resistance of the material as
the rate of straining is increased. Another is the
availability of less time for the adhesion of the contacting
asperities. As well, the increasing oil volume, available to
be drawn into the deformation zone affects the frictional
phenomena. The roughness of the roll and its direction
determine how much of the oil can enter the contact
zone and how it will be distributed.
6.3 The effect of the temperature
Of the process parameters, the least researched one
is the temperature at the contacting surfaces, no doubt
because of the difficulties associated with its
measurements. The temperatures at the contacting
surfaces should be reported, and while there have been
attempts to measure them, they are still rather elusive.
Measuring the temperature of the centre of the rolled
sample using embedded thermocouples has also been
done and in that case a mathematical model is needed to
estimate the temperature at the surface. The model also
would require the heat transfer coefficient in the contact
zone and that introduces another level of complexity. In
what follows either the surface or the central
temperatures are given, following the quoted reference.
Explicit data on the dependence of the coefficient of
friction on temperature are difficult to find. The most
comprehensive data are given by Male (1964), who used
the ring compression test to determine the friction factor
for a number of materials and bulk temperatures. The
data indicate that as the temperature increases so does
p. The deviations from this trend are small and they
appear at the high temperature ranges. The data of
Devenpeck and Rigo (1983), also obtained in the ring
compression test, indicate a very significant dependence
of the friction factor on the temperature. The friction
factor was found to vary from a high of 0.915, when dry,
scaled surface was present to 0.162, when no scales
were present but a lubricant was used.
Wang and Lenard (1992) compared the results of
Venugopal et al. (1989) and Pawelski et al. (1989) to
data they produced. Venugopal et al. used ARMCO iron
which scaled heavily, as did the steels, employed by
Wang and Lenard. Pawelski et al. (1989) used a carbon
steel as well as a Cr steel. The data obtained show some
contradictions. Wang and Lenard (1992) observed that
the temperature had no effect on friction. Venugopal et
al. (1989) found that the friction factor decreased as the
temperature is increased. Pawelski et al. (1989) found
that friction increased with the temperature when the
carbon steel was used and that it increased much faster
when a steel with low rate of scaling was employed.
Data, indicating the temperature dependence of
frictional resistance, have been given by Wusatowski
(1965). The coefficients of friction, obtained by matching
the measured and calculated roll forces, indicate strong
dependence on the speed, as expected and indicated by
others. The downward trend is not obeyed at low speeds
where there is an increase of the frictional resistance. It
is difficult to separate the temperature and the speed
effects on the coefficient at this point. The data for five
different carbon steels show that the coefficient of friction
during hot rolling of steels first rises with increasing
temperature, reaches a plateau and falls
0.28
Nominal reduction
0.24-
-
c
.-0
0
E 0.20-
0 30%
+
-
0
c
.-0,
0
0
O.I6-
0.12-
r -
0.08
800 900 1000 1100 1200
entry surface temperature ("C)
Figure 12: The coefficient of friction inferred, using a two
dimensional finite element model, during hot rolling of
low carbon steels (Munther and Lenard, 1995)
The measured roll force and torque were matched by
the predictions of a 2D FE model and the coefficient of
friction, allowing that match is reported in Figure 12,
above. Data, obtained from a laboratory rolling mill,
clearly indicate that the coefficient of friction decreases
with increasing temperatures.
As Schey (1983) writes, and as the above review
suggests, the effect of temperature on friction is a
function of the condition of the surface, including the
presence or absence of lubrication or scaling, its
thickness, its behaviour - whether brittle or viscoplastic -
in addition to the strength of the adhesion of the scale to
the parent material. He also points out the fact that much
of the information, concerning mostly hot and warm
rolling of steel, is contradictory. Rabinowicz (1995)
separates the effect of temperature changes, caused by
external heating or cooling or by high speed sliding, on
the coefficient of friction. It is the former case that is
applicable here. In the cases presented by Rabinowicz
(1995) the frictional coefficient appears to be insensitive
to those changes. There are exceptions to this general
observation, however. The coefficients of friction
between stainless steel 304 and nickel, stainless steel
and cobalt and graphite and aluminium are shown to be
strongly temperature dependent. Evidently, there is a
contribution to these changes by material properties.
The effect of the temperature on the magnitude of
the coefficient of friction in hot rolling should not be
separated from other phenomena. Chemical
composition, scale breakers, time in the furnace, etc.
should be taken into account when the coefficient is
chosen for modeling.
6.4 The effect of scaling
Primary scale forms when the slabs are soaked prior
to rolling. Secondary scale forms randomly at the
workpieceholl interface, as the two surfaces are in
contact, but also in-between stands in the finishing train.
Inter-stand scale breakers are used to minimize the
amount of secondary scale in the roll gap. However, a
certain amount of scale will always create a layer
between the rolls and the workpiece. The presence of
scale in rolling can, hypothetically, have two opposite
effects. Scale could, if soft and ductile enough serve as
lubrication or, if hard and abrasive, serve as an abrasive
medium in a three-body wear mechanism. Shaesby et
al. (1984) investigated the morphology of the scale
formed on the surface of a low carbon steel at 1200"C,
reporting FeO : Fe304 : Fez03 ratios of 95:4:1, consistent
with the information reported by others (Mrowec and
Przybylski, 1977). Birks and Meier (1983) attributed this
fact to the greater mobility of defects in wustite. Matsuno
(1980) studied blistering and hydraulic removal of
relatively thin scale films on AlSl 1008 steel. It was
reported that the scale consisted of wustite to the
greatest extent, followed by magnetite and haematite,
independent of the temperature
El-Kalay and Sparling (1968) investigated the effect
of scale on frictional conditions in hot rolling of low
carbon steels. Light, medium, and heavy scaling with
both smooth and rough rolls at various velocities were
studied. Load and torque functions, according to Sims'
equations, were calculated. It was hypothesized that the
scale acts as a poor lubricant and that its effect on the
frictional conditions varies along the arc of contact as it
fractures. It was found that the presence of scale could
reduce the roll loads by as much as 25%. A thick scale
reduced the loads more than a thin scale since the thick
scale breaks up into islands that transmit the load from
the rolls to the strip. The islands become separated as
the strip is elongated. Hot metal then extrudes between
the islands and sticks to the rolls while the sliding islands
move further apart and promote tensions applied to the
sticking portion, thereby reducing the load. It was also
found that thin scale promotes sliding friction with smooth
rolls, but sticking friction with rough rolls. The load
increased with temperature in rolling with rough rolls, but
decreased with the temperature for smooth rolls.
Roberts (1983) used the data of El-Kalay and
Sparling (1968) to model the coefficient of friction in
terms of scale thickness, roll roughness and the
temperature. The model predicts an increase in p with
increasing roll surface roughness, decrease in scale
thickness or increased temperature.
Luong and Heijkoop (1981) studied the effect of scale
on friction in hot forging, using the ring test technique.
Altering furnace atmosphere and heating times varied
the scale composition and thickness on carbon steels.
The furnace atmosphere consisted of C02, 02,or air,
and the heating times ranged from eight to 240 minutes.
Longer heating times resulted in greater amounts of
wustite. It was found that the friction factor decreased
with increasing scale thickness. The composition of the
scale was not related to the overall frictional conditions.
Li and Sellars (1995) found sticking friction in hot
forging of scaled low carbon steel. A certain degree of
forward slipping, indicating partly or completely sliding
friction, occured in the rolling of the same material.
Comments, similar to Blazevic's (1996), were made on
the breakup of the scale. They found a limited number of
cracks on specimens with thin scale. A scale layer can
follow a similar reduction and elongation as the steel only
if its strength is equal to or lower than that of the steel.
Schunke et al. (1988) presented a hypothesis on the
effect of partial oxygen pressure on friction coefficients at
room temperature, although additional information for
temperatures below 600°C was presented for various Fe
alloys. The drop in friction was explained as follows: the
oxide particles are fragmented when deformed and
become further oxidized and compacted onto the metal
surfaces where they form islands in the next cycle. When
these islands grow in area a large portion of the shearing
is at these islands, causing the total contact area to be
reduced. Friction is then lowered because of the brittle
nature of the oxide particles that are being sheared.
6.5 The effect of the surface roughness
Rabinowicz (1995) concludes that except in the case
of very low and very high surface roughness, friction is
independent of the surface roughness. Very low
roughness provides a large number of adhesive bonds
while high roughness forces the bodies to lift over one -
another. The same conclusion is reached by Booser
(1984): . . . "surface roughness has little or no consistent
effect on the coefficient of friction of clean, dry
surfaces ."... Current results appear to contradict this
conclusion.
Evidence that the magnitude of the roughness of the
surface and especially its direction affect frictional
resistance is evident in the work of Sheu et al. (1998).
Rolling AI-Mg-Cu strips, lubricated with a mineral oil, and
using rolls of various topographies, the authors
concluded that the lowest roll forces are obtained when
the roughness direction is random. Figure 13 indicates
that using the random surface roughness, the rate of
increase of the roll force with the reduction is the lowest.
1
- ground roll topography
0' I I I I I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
reduction ratio
Figure 13: The roll separating force increases with the
reduction at a much lower rate when the roll surface
direction is random (Sheu, 1998)
Adverse lubricating conditions were found while cold
rolling thin steel and aluminium strips when the
roughness direction was parallel to the direction of rolling
(Lu and Chuang, 1985). Jeng (1990) and Yuen et al.
(1996) found that lower surface roughness leads to lower
friction. Azarkin and Richmond (1990) and Andersson
and Salas-Russo (1994) also observed that friction is
defined by surface conditions and the load carrying
ability is increased when the roughness decreases.
Tabary et al. (1994) found that increasing the oil film
thickness or decreasing the roughness lead to lower
friction.
The above indicates that surface effects on friction
should not be ignored. Lower roughness appears to
cause lower frictional resistance. Random roughness
leads to lower loads, by allowing the lubricant to spread
well in the contact zone.
7. Applications to the flat rollinu process
The dependence of the coefficient of friction,
determined by the inverse technique, on the rolling speed
and the reduction is shown in Figure 13. Low carbon steel
strips were cold rolled, using six commercially available
lubricants, with viscosities ranging from 5.95 to 25.15
mm2/s. The coefficients of friction were inferred using a I D
model (Lenard et al. 1999) by matching the measured and
calculated forces, torques and the forwards slip. The values
of the coefficient of friction, thus obtained, are shown in
Figure 14. As expected, the coefficient of friction drops
with increasing velocity and increasing reduction.
The dependence of the inferred coefficient of friction on
the model used is demonstrated in Figure 14. The
predictions by Hill's formula and by a I D model (Lenard et
al. 1999) are compared in the figure. The same trends are
observed.
The second model indicates significantly lower values
of the coefficient of friction, of importance when the
predictions are to be used in setting the draft schedule of
the rolling mill.
 0.20
expect that the parameters that affected frictional forces will
also affect the amount and the rate of heat transfer in the
v A Nominalreduction: 15%
deformation zone. In that context it is helpful to examine
0.16 Figure 16, showing an enlarged, schematic view of the cold
c roll in contact with a strip being rolled and the various layers
0
a that affect the transfer of heat.
0
z 0.12
-
c
0
c
a, cold roll
0.08
a,
s + +\
X F
oxide layer on roll
0.04
Nominal reduction: 50%

0.00 oxide scale on stock

I I I
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
hot steel stock
Roll surface speed (mm/s)

Figure 14: The coefficient of friction, calculated by a I D Figure 16: A schematic view of two surfaces in contact
model (Lenard et al. 1999). Low carbon steel strips were (Li and Sellars, 1999)
cold rolled, using commercially available lubricants.
While the figure was prepared to illustrate hot rolling of
steel, it is equally applicable to any flat rolling operation; the
0.30- oxide layers would then be replaced by contamination or a
lubricant layer, delivered in the form of neat oil or an
+ Hill's formula emulsion. There may be one possible addition to the
figure: the interfacial shear force. As indicated by
Krzyzanowski and Beynon (1999a, 1999b), the potential
c
2 0.20 -
break up of the scale layer depends, among other
.o
k
Reduction parameters, on the strength of the adhesion between the

-
c
0
c
.a, "\} 15%
layer and the parent metal. The adhesive force is sensitive
to the shear stresses.

50

5 0.10-
- om~----$
+ I 50%
The thermal boundary conditions at the rolI/metal
interface are traditionally expressed in terms of the heat
transfer coefficient.

8.1 Thermal boundary conditions

[ Lubricant BJ
0.00 - Heat transfer plays an important role in metalforming
I I I I processes where both the work piece and tool behaviour
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 are strongly effected by the temperature fields. The heat
Roll surface speed (mm/s) flux at the work piece/tool interface is governed by the
interface heat transfer coefficient and the temperatures
of the contacting surfaces, as given below:
Figure 15: The coefficient of friction, calculated by Hill's
formula and by the I D model. Lubricant B is a product of
Imperial Oil, of 19.85 mm2/sviscosity.

Reference may also be made to the dependence of the
coefficient of friction on the loads. As observed and as
pointed out above, in the large majority of instances the
coefficient of friction decreases when the load is increased.
The limiting case when the frictional shear stress reaches
the yield strength in shear has not been observed,
especially when oils are used. The exceptions appear to
involve dry rolling passes of softer materials. Of the
competing mechanisms, the increasing pressure on the
lubricant, creating higher viscosity and thus, lower friction,
causes most of the drop of the coefficient of friction.
where a is the heat transfer coefficient.
The thermal boundary conditions may prescribe the
temperature along the surface; its normal derivative or a
linear combination of the two, leading to the numerical
solutions, which involve the integration of the
quasiharmonic heat transfer equation. The quality of the
results will depend on the rigor and the accuracy of the
mathematical descriptions of the boundary conditions.
The thermal boundary conditions in the flat rolling
process are illustrated in Figure 17.

8. Heat transfer
The transfer of thermal energy at the contact is of
equal importance to the transfer of forces and forms a
significant part of studies of tribology. It is reasonable to
These involve heat gains and losses due to various
phenomena, including contact with the roll, with the
environment, with the cooling water sprays, with the
emulsion in addition to mechanical events.

(Heat loss to ai3 I Heat loss to the roll
Heat aain from 1 temperature profiles during hot rolling of aluminium
Heat gain from plastic work
and metallurgical events
Figure 17: The boundary conditions in the flat rolling
process (Lenard et al. 1999)
Much of the information concerning the coefficient of
heat transfer has been obtained from the compression
process. In that context it is instructive to examine the
boundary conditions used by Kopp and Philipp (1992):
r a d i a t d specific h i a t capacity
I
\ yield Stress Young's modulus
Figure 18: The thermal boundary conditions in the
impression die process (Kopp and Philipp, 1992)
In addition to the heat transfer coefficient other
thermo-physical constants are needed when the
temperature distribution is to be calculated. The
conductivity and specific heat of the metal should be
introduced into the finite-element programs as functions
of the current local temperatures. These functions,
obtained for various materials on the basis of
experimental data, have been published by Touloukian
and Buyco (1970), Touloukian et al. (1970a) and
Touloukian et al. (1970b).
8.2 Determination of the heat transfer coefficient
While the solution algorithms are now well
established, relatively little work has been reported
regarding procedures that lead to an estimate of the
interface heat transfer coefficient in bulk forming
processes. As with the coefficient of friction, there are
essentially two approaches by which the heat transfer
coefficient may be determined. One of these is the
inverse method, in which a is chosen such that
calculated and measured temperature distributions will
agree closely. The other is to use the experimentally
established time-temperature profiles to estimate the
temperatures of the two contacting surfaces and use the
definition of the heat transfer coefficient as the ratio of
the heat flux and the temperature difference of the
surfaces. Naturally, both of the methods have limitations.
In the former, success depends on the quality, accuracy
and rigor of both the measurements that are to match the
predictions of a model and those of the model itself. The
latter is also dependent on the measurements in addition
to the technique of determining the surface temperatures
and hence. their difference.
Among those that employed the first method is Chen
et al. (1993). The authors measured the time-
strips, using four thermocouples, two of which were
embedded in the strip and the two others were located in
grooves, machined on the surfaces. The heat transfer
coefficient at the rolktrip contact surface was then
inferred by matching the surface temperatures,
calculated by a thermal-mechanical model of the
process, to the data collected by the thermocouples
located in the grooves. The conclusion emerging from
the study indicated that a was not constant along the arc
of contact and that it was a function of the roll pressure
distribution, the interface oxide layer, the surface
roughness and, if a lubricant is used, the surface
chemistry. The heat transfer coefficient was found to vary
from a low of 10000 W/Km2 to 54000 W/Km2 for a variety
of reductions. A similar approach was described by
Sellars (1985), who wrote that ..." a trial-and-error
procedure of fitting experimental cooling data enabled
values the heat transfer coefficient to be determined as
a function of reheating temperatures and lubrication
conditions". Dadras and Wells (1984) also determined a
by a trial-and-error procedure, using the predictions of a
two dimensional finite difference model.
The design of thermocouples embedded in the
deforming metal or in the work roll is important since the
data they provide may help in the accurate determination
of the surface temperatures. Two typical designs and
their variations have been shown by Kellow et al. (1969),
reproduced here as Figure 19.
U . INCHES
Figure 19: The left side shows the design of Vigor and
Hornaday (1961) and on the right, the one due to Kellow
et al. (1969) is given
The distance of the thermocouple tip from the surface
is a critical parameter. The time response of the
instrument is also to be considered, indicating that thin
wires are better, in spite of their higher tendency to bend
under high interfacial pressures.
Bariani et al. (1996, 1999) and D'Angelo et al. (1997,
1998) studied hot forging and used the inverse technique
to determine the temperature field and thus the heat
transfer coefficient. The authors used a lubricant,
sprayed on the surfaces. They found that a increased
when the surfaces were lubricated. The values varied,
from a low 3050 W/m2C, under dry conditions at room
temperatures to 4500 W/m2C when MoS2 was used. The
procedure the authors used in determining the heat
transfer coefficient shows an interesting way
connecting experiments and analysis.
V
HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT 1
Figure 20: The procedure of D’Angelo (1998) to
determine the heat transfer coefficient
Semiatin et al. (1987) developed a technique by
which the heat transfer coefficient can be estimated
based on the measurement of the die temperature
brought into contact with the deforming workpiece. A
one-dimensional analysis, developed by Klafs (1969),
and a finite difference model were used to derive
calibration curves in terms of temperature differences of
the die and the workpiece, from which the heat transfer
coefficients were determined. The technique, proposed
by Semiatin et al. (1987) led to constant values of the
heat transfer coefficient for the given initial conditions.
The technique was used to develop further data,
applicable for the process of hot forging by Burte et al.
(1990). Tool steel dies were used in the experiments in
which aluminium alloy rings were compressed.
The direct experimental technique was used by
Karagiozis (1986) and Pietrzyk and Lenard (1988, 1991).
The method involved hot rolling of carbon steel slabs,
instrumented with several thermocouples, monitoring
their output during the pass and inferring the surface
temperatures of the slabs in the contact zone by
extrapolation. The original definition of the heat transfer
coefficient in terms of the heat flux and the difference of
the temperatures of the contacting surfaces was then
used to determine the magnitude of a.
As mentioned already, both approaches have
drawbacks. It is also understood, however, that accurate
values of the heat transfer coefficient - one of the
boundary conditions for the evaluation of variables during
hot forming - are critical if accurate and consistent
modelling of a metalforming process is required.
The process parameters that affect the coefficient are
the velocity, the roll diameter, temperature, and reduction
(Pietrzyk and Lenard, 1991). The heat penetration
number and the thermal diffusivity of the rolls, both of
which are dependent on heat conductivity, density, and
heat capacity, are also of importance along with the
of parameters of the processed material. The type and the
amount of scale which lowers heat transfer should also
be considered. Lubrication has been shown to cause a
difference of two orders of magnitude of cr when
combined with the presence of scale (Murata et al. 1984;
Pietrzyk and Lenard, 1991). As well, one can only
speculate about the effects the relative velocity between
the strip and the roll, the nature of scale formation and
the varying roll pressure would have on the coefficient.
(the heat transfer coefficient
I
/
more bonds form for the same
is reduced and the so more heat is
temperature drop
changes, affecting
( viscoplastic scale 7 ,z%r
the insulation a falls
bonds a falls
Figure 21 : The phenomena and their interconnections,
affecting the heat transfer coefficient
The number of process and material parameters is large
and there is significant interaction among them. It is
therefore necessary to focus on those parameters that
may be controlled with reasonable confidence in a
systematic testing program. The interdependence of the
heat transfer coefficient on process parameters is
illustrated in Figure 21.
In what follows, the temperature, the load and the
relative velocity of the contacting surfaces are
considered as the most significant, and their effect on the
coefficient of heat transfer will be discussed. Hot rolling
in the laboratory (Karagiozis and Lenard, 1988), hot
rolling in industry (Pietrzyk and Lenard, 1990) and hot
compression (Malinowski and Lenard, 1993; Lenard and
Davies, 1995) under controlled conditions is examined.
Hot rolling in the laboratory - the heat transfer
coefficient: Murata et al. (1984) measured the heat
transfer coefficient in uniaxial compression and reported
the effects of several lubricants and scale on its
magnitude. The carbon steel specimens, loaded in
compression, were heated to 780°C. The contact
surfaces were prepared with either scales, lubricants or
were kept dry. The results show that the heat transfer
coefficient varied from a low of 5800 W/m2 K to a high of
465000 W/m2 K. It is noted that the testing temperature is
significantly below the hot rolling range for most steels.
Further examination of the published values of the
coefficient makes its choice even more difficult. Stevens
et al. (1971) suggest 38700 W/m2 K for hot rolling with
watercooled rolls. Preisendanz et al. (1967) give 1.2 and
2.5 MJ/m2s at 700 and 11OO’C, respectively. Silvonen et
al. (1987) use 70000 W/m2 K; Bryant and Chiu (1982)
employ 7000 W/m2 K. These have all been obtained on
full scale mills. Using a research mill Harding (1976)
obtained a as 2055 W/m2 K at 700°C and 5100 W/m2 K
at 1100°C. These values are close to those of Pietrzyk
and Lenard (1991), obtained on an experimental mill.
Kopp and Phillipp (1992) determine the interface heat
transfer coefficient by comparing the measured
temperatures of a hot sample, subjected to controlled
pressure, to the predictions of an FE program.
Wankhede and Samarasekera (1997) use a transient
thermal model to analyze the behaviour of tool steel rolls.
They quote Chen et al. (1993) to report a relationship of
the heat transfer coefficient and the interfacial pressure:
a = 0 . 6 9 5 ~- 34.4 (19)
where p is the pressure in MPa and a is the coefficient of
heat transfer in kW/m2C. For a pressure of 150 MPa the
formula predicts a = 69850 W/m2C, a realistic number.
As the rolling speeds and hence, the strain rates
increase, the rolled metal's resistance to deformation
would also increase and the roll pressures required
would approach 200 MPa. Eq. (15) predicts a = 104600
W/m2C, considered to be much too high.
Four thermocouples were employed in the tests of
Karagiozis (1986) and Karagiozis and Lenard (1988).
Typical results of the time-temperature profiles and
calculations obtained are shown in Figure 22. The best
comparison of measured and computed temperatures is
obtained when the coefficient is 16000 W/m2 K.
880
840
0
c
800
!!
Q
760
720
0 2 4 6
time. s
Figure 22: Time-temperature profile; 20% reduction at 4
rpm; 250 mm diameter rolls (Karagiozis, 1986)
These comments, along with the data given by
Pietrzyk and Lenard (1989) and Karagiozis (1986), allow
an appreciation of the dependence of the heat transfer
coefficient on the reduction, entry thickness, roll speed,
temperature drop in the pass and entry temperature.
The change in the heat content in the pass is given
by Pietrzyk et al. (1994):
where p is the density, c, is the specific heat, o, is the
average flow stress in the pass, and E, is the effective
strain. If air cooling of the sides is neglected, the total
heat loss is equal to the heat flux through the contact
surface. The heat transfer coefficient is obtained from:
where TStr,, - Tr0, defines the difference of the surface
temperatures of the roll and the strip and t designates the
time of contact. The temperatures are obtained by
integration over the volume of the strips.
A comparison of the predictions to Chen et al. (1993)
is now possible. The average roll pressure in the
experiment using the 19 mm thick strip, reduced by 21%
at 4 rpm is 162 MPa. Eq. (19) predicts a = 78000 W/m2K
while the calculations, based on the experimental data,
give 12780 W/m2K. The discrepancy is caused by the
dependence of the coefficient on several parameters, in
addition to the pressure. As pointed out by Hlady et al.
(1995), and by Wankhede and Samarasekera (1997), the
thermal properties of the roll and the strip and the
surface flow stress should also be included in an
empirical relationship. In addition to those, the strip and
the roll temperature, the relative speed of the roll and the
workpiece, the scale thickness, its composition, hardness
and roughness should be accounted for.
More systematic experiments are needed in which
the temperatures of the roll and of the rolled strip are
monitored as a function of the significant process and
material parameters. The data should then be used to
develop either an empirical relation or to train a neural
network, which, after satisfactory testing, may be used as
a predictive tool.
Hot rolling in industry - heat transfer coefficient:
Even though direct determination of the heat transfer
coefficient in industrial conditions are rare, there is a
consensus among researchers that it appears to be
significantly larger than values obtained in the laboratory.
The difficulties in conducting trials using a full-scale strip
mill are probably impossible to overcome and this
necessitates the use of inverse calculations. Calculations
performed using data obtained from the finishing train of
a hot strip mill indicate that the best fit to the measured
temperatures is obtained when 50000 W/m2 K is used for
the heat transfer coefficient, see Figure 23.
I o o o 7
I '
A 4800W/rn*rn*K ,029 2.45 1.5
9 23300 W/rn*rn*K
50000 W/rn*rn*K ,003
time, s
Figure 23: The effect of the heat transfer coefficient on
the temperature history in a seven-stand hot strip mill
In a different hot strip mill, when strip surface
temperatures at the entry to each stand were available,
the heat transfer coefficient varied from a low of 73800
W/m2K at the first stand to 79900 W/m2K at the last. It
appears that the heat transfer coefficient remained
essentially constant in the seven passes. It must be
emphasized here that these numbers depend, in a very
significant manner, on the data available from mill logs.
Traditionally, these include the surface temperature of
the strip after the rougher and before coiling but they do
not provide stand-to-stand temperature data.
Preliminary conclusions indicate that the heat transfer
coefficient depends, to some extent, on the interfacial
pressure. Geometry, especially the roll diameter,
temperature and the relative velocity of the contacting
surfaces also affect its magnitude. The most significant
contribution, however, is obtained from the presence or
absence of scaling and lubrication. In the laboratory the
magnitudes range from 4000 to 20000 W/m2 K, when hot
rolling steel. Cold rolling of aluminium strips leads to
20000 to 30000 W/m2 K. Under industrial conditions,
50000 to 80000 W/m2 K appear to be useful numbers.
9. New field in tribology
Introduction of the atomic force microscope (AFM),
developed by Binnig et al. (1986), as a research tool to
study the adhesion, friction and lubrication phenomena is a
fairly recent event. Shown schematically in Figure 24, the
tip is considered to be a single asperity. The device is able
to measure forces as low as 1o - N.~
InterferometerAFM
&-Optical Fiber
El Cantilever
Interference Cav
Scanners
Figure 24: A schematic diagram of an atomic force
microscope (Salmeron, 1993).
Salmeron (1993) shows data, obtained by the atomic
force microscope, concerning the mechanical properties of
a
a thin film of gold, using a tip radius of 1000 and the
viscoelastic properties of monolayers. The wear
properties of organic lubricants were measured by Overney
and Meyer (1993) using the AFM. Friction forces at the
atomic level were shown to depend partly on sound energy
by Krim (1997), also using an AFM. At this point in time,
however, the potential of the atomic force microscope is
still largely unexploited.
10. Conclusions
The importance of tribology of the flat rolling process
was considered in economic terms as well as by
considering potential improvements to product quality and
process control. There is general agreement that proper
use of tribological principles in design and in the
maintenance of products would result in substantial
savings. As well, their increased use on process design
and control would contribute, in a significant measure, to
increased productivity and surface quality.
Two parameters that define boundary conditions were
identified: the coefficients of friction and heat transfer, exact
values of which are needed for process planning. Both
coefficients may be considered to be functions of the three
components of the flat rolling system: the rolling mill, the
rolled metal and their interface. In a perfect physical or
mathematical model of the process, all attributes of each of
the three components should be included. In practice,
however, the relative velocity, the interface temperature
and the reduction may be considered to be the
independent variables. Attributes of the rolling system are
all affected by these variables.
The coefficient of friction was shown to decrease when
the reduction per pass increased in most instances. The
parameter of prime importance appears to be the strength
of the rolled metal. Rolling soft aluminium resulted in
increasing frictional resistance with increasing reduction,
opposing the above-mentioned trend, which was obeyed,
without fail when harder metals were rolled. The oxide
layers on the aluminium strips have also affected the
conditions at the interface and thus, the coefficient of
friction.
The coefficient of friction decreased in all instances
when the relative velocity was increased. The rate of
decrease varied and was influenced by the interaction of
several parameters, including the rate at which new
adhesive bonds were created, the time rate of change of
the rolled metal's resistance to deformation and the
increased amount of lubricants drawn into to roll gap.
The important phenomena in determining the nature of
the events in the contact zone include what may enter it,
how that entry is achieved and what happens after entry.
Lubricants, contamination, oxide layers may be present in
between the roll and the rolled stock. They may be allowed
to enter; they may be rejected. They may be affected by
the interfacial pressures and shear stresses.
The coefficient of friction in dry rolling of soft aluminium
strips is in the range of 0.1 to 0.3, depending on the
reduction. Dry rolling a 6061 -T6 alloy yielded values about
10 % lower. Introducing lubricants lowered the coefficient of
friction to a low of 0.03, increasing to 0.18 - 0.2. When
rolling low carbon steel strips, using neat oils or emulsions
the magnitudes ranged from a low of about 0.03 to a high
of 0.2 - 0.25.
The coefficient of heat transfer is more difficult to
determine experimentally. Experimental techniques, based
on various ways of embedding thermocouples in the rolled
metal have been published. Still, the most widespread
approach to establish the magnitude of the coefficient is by
the inverse technique. The largest difficulty appears to be
the lack of precise knowledge of the temperatures of the
contacting surfaces. Mathematical models are available but
their accuracy depends on the information used as the
initial condition.
Geometry, pressure, temperature and relative velocity
all affect the transfer of heat. The conditions of the surface,
however, appear to create the dominant phenomena. The
presence or absence of scales, contamination and
lubricants have been observed to cause orders of
magnitude changes. Under laboratory conditions, when hot
rolling steel, 4000 - 20000 W/m2 K appear to be the correct
magnitudes of a. In industry, 50000 - 80000 W/m2 K are
more useful.
Several questions still appear to have no answers at
present. While the following list may be incomplete, it
gives an indication of the lacking information.
What are the mechanisms that determine how much
lubricant will enter the deformation zone?
What are the phenomena controlling the actions of the
lubricants within the contact zone?
Is the inclusion of surface roughness in a model to
evaluate friction necessary? This problem needs to be
studied in light of Wilson's (1995) comments.
Are lubricants in industrial use environmentally
friendly? How could they be of use after the product
has been formed?
Is inverse modelling to determine either the coefficient
of friction or heat transfer sufficiently accurate?
While the above did not deal with modelling, are
available models of sufficient use, accuracy and
consistency? How should the comments and critique
of Barber (1991), questioning the value of modelling,
be evaluated?
How should the atomic force microscope be used in
studying tribology in metal forming?
How does the increasing use of coating affect the
interaction of surfaces?
How would the use of the correct magnitudes of the
two coefficients affect the grain structure and hence,
the attributes, of the product?
The potential use of the "third body concept' in the
analysis of metal forming processes needs to be
examined.
References
Ahmed, R. and Sutcliffe, M.P.F., 1999, "Evolution of
Surface Roughness within the Roll Bite during Cold Rolling
of Stainless Steel", Proc. Modelling of Metal Rolling
Processes 3, London, IOM Communications, eds. J.H.
Beynon, M.T. Clark, P. Ingham, P. Kern and K. Waterson,
390-399.
Aiyedun, P.O., Sparling, L.G.M. and Sellars, C.M., 1997,
"Temperature Changes in Hot Flat Rolling of Steels at
Low Strain Rates and Low Reduction", Proc. lnstn Mech
Engrs, 21 1 B, 261-284.
Al-Salehi, F.A.K., Firbank, T.C. and Lancaster, P.G., 1973,
"An Experimental Determination of the Roll Pressure
Distribution in Cold Rolling," Int. Journal Mech. Sci., 15,
693-710.
Al-Sharif, A,, Chamniprasart, K., Rajagopal, K. R., and
Szeri, A. Z., 1992, "Lubrication With Binary Mixtures:
Liquid-Liquid Emulsion", ASME, J. Trib., 115, 46-55.
Andersson, S. and Salas-Russo, E., 1994, "The
Influence of Surface Roughness and Oil Viscosity on the
Transition in Mixed Lubricated Sliding Steel Contacts",
Wear, 174, 71-79.
Archard, J.F. and Rowtree, R.A., 1988, "Metallurgical
phase transformations in the rubbing of steels", Proc. R.
SOC.Lond., A418, 405-424.
Avitzur, B. and Kohser, R., 1978, "Disk and Strip Forging
for the Determination of Friction and Flow Strength Values,"
ASLE, Trans. 21, 143-151.
Azarkhin, A. and Richmond, O., 1992, "Limits to Adhesive
Friction", in Num. Meth. Ind. Form. Proc., eds. Chenot,
Wood & Ziemkiewicz, Balkema, 143-148.
Azushima, A,, 1978, "Characteristics of Lubrication in
Cold Sheet Rolling", Lubrication Challenges in
Metalworking and Processing, Proc. of 1st Int. Conf., IIT
Research Inst., Chicago, 81-87.
Azushima, A,, 1995, "Direct observation of contact
behaviour to interpret the pressure dependence of the
coefficient of friction in sheet metal forming", Annals of
the CIRP, 44, 209-212.
Baltov, A.I. and Nedev, A.G., 1995, "An approach to the
modelling of contact friction during rolling", J. Mat. Proc.
Techn., 53, 695-71 1.
Banerji, A. and Rice, W.B., 1972, "Experimental
Determination of Normal Pressure and Friction Stress in
the Rolling Gap During Cold Rolling", Annals of the
CIRP, 21, 53-54.
Barber, J.R., 1991, "Is Modeling in Tribology a Useful
Activity?", in Tribological Modeling for Mechanical
Designers, ASTM STP 1105, eds, Ludema K.C. and
Bayer, R.G., ASTM, PA, 165-172.
Bariani, P.F., Berti, G.A., D'Angelo, L. and Guggia, R.,
1996, "Determination of the Heat Transfer Coefficient in
the Die-Billet Zone for Nonisothermal Forging
Conditions", in Advanced Manufacturincr Svstems and
Technolocrv, ed. E, Kuljanic, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Bariani, P.F., Berti, G.A. and Dal Negro, T., 1999, "The
Cooling of Hot Forging Dies by Spraying: Set up of
Testing Procedure and Numerical Analysis", IV AITEM
Conf., Brescia.
Barwell, F.T., 1984, "Advances in Friction and Wear
Mechanisms", Trib. Int., 17, 299-307.
Batchelor, A.W. and Stachowiak, G.W., 1995, Tribology
in Materials Processing, J. Mat. Proc. Techn., 48, 503-
515.
Bay, N. and Wanheim, T., 1976, "Real Area of Contact
and Friction Stress at High Pressure Sliding Contact',
Wear 38 201-209.
Bech, J., Bay, N. and Eriksen, M., 1998, "Entrapment
and Escape of Liquid Lubricant in Metal Forming", Proc.
8th Int. Conf. Tribology, eds. S.S. Eskildsen, D.S. Larsen,
H. Reitz, E.J. Bienk and C.A. Straede, Aarhus, 713-719.
Binnig, G., Quate, C.F. and Gerber, Ch., 1986, "Atomic
Force Microscopy", Phys. Rev. Lett., 56, 930-933.
Birks, N. and Meier, G.H., 1983, Introduction to High
Temperature Oxidation of Metals, Edward Arnold,
London.
Blazevic, D.T., 1996, "Tertiary Rolled in Scale - the Hot
Strip Mill Problem of the 199O's", 37th MWSP Conf. Proc.
ISS-AIME, XXXIII, 33-38.
Booser, E. R., 1984, Handbook of Lubrication, Volume II,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Booser, E. R., 1997, Tribology Data Handbook, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Bowden, F.P. and Tabor, D.,1950, The Friction and
Lubrication of Solids, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Bowden, F.P. and Tabor, D., 1973, Friction - An
Introduction to Tribolouv, Heinemann Educational Books
Ltd., London.
Briant, J.,Denis, J. and Parc, G.,1989, Rheolouical
Properties of Lubricants, Editions Technip, Paris.
Butte, P.R., Im, Y-T., Altan, T. and Semiatin, S.L., 1990,
"Measurement and Analysis of Heat Transfer and Friction
During Hot Forging", ASME J. Eng. Ind., 112, 332-339.
Bryant,G.F. and Chiu,T.S.L., 1982, "Simplified Roll-
Temperature Model: Convective Cooling", Metals Techn.,
9, 478-484
Challen, J.M. and Oxley, P.L.B., 1984, "A Slip Line Field
Analysis of the Transition from Local Asperity Contact to
Full Contact in Metallic Sliding Friction", Wear, 100, 171-
193.
Chen, W.C., Samarasekera, I.V., and Hawbolt, E.B.,
1993, "Fundamental Phenomena Governing Heat
Transfer During Rolling", Met. Trans. A, 24, 1307-1320.
Christensen, P., Everfelt, H. and Bay, N., 1986,
"Pressure Distribution in Plate Rolling", Annals of the
CIRP, 35, 141-146.
Curnier, A,, 1984, "A Theory of Friction", Int. J. Solids
and Structures, 20, 637-647.
Czichos, H., 1978, Tribology - A Systems Approach to
the Science and Technology of Friction, Lubrication and
Wear, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Dadras, P. and Wells W.R., 1984, "Heat Transfer
Aspects of Nonisothermal Axisymmetric UPSET
Forging", ASME, J. Eng. Ind., 106, 187-195.
D'Angelo, L., 1998, "Enhanced Framework for Forging
Design using Reliable Three dimensional Simulation",
Progress report
D'Angelo, L., Bariani, P.F. and Berti, G.A., 1997,
"Analysis of Heat Flow in the Forging Process", Ill AITEM
Conf., Fisciano, 47-55.
Demkin, N.B., Berkovich, 1.1. and Kourova, M.S., 1978,
"Statistical Analysis of a Rough-Surface Model", J. Mech.
Eng. Science, 20, 315-318.
DePierre, V. and Gurney, F., 1974, "A Method for
Determination of Constant and Varying Friction Factors
During Ring Compression Tests", ASME J. Lubr. Techn.,
96, 482-488.
Devadas, C. and Samarasekera, I.V., 1986, "Heat
Transfer During Hot Rolling of Steel Strip", lronmaking
and Steelmaking, 13, 311-321.
Devadas, C., Samarasekera, I.V. and Hawbolt, E.B.,
1991, "The Thermal and Metallurgical State of Steel Strip
during Hot Rolling: Part i. Characterization of Heat
Transfer", Met. Trans A, 22A, 307-319.
Devenpeck, M.L., and Rigo, J.H., 1983, "Hot Ring
Compression Tests for Evaluating Friction", in
Compression Testing of Homogeneous Materials and
Composites, ASTM STP 808, ed. R. Chait.
DinC, 0 3 , Ettles, C.M., Calabrese, S.J. and Scarton,
H.A., 1993, "The Measurement of Surface Temperature
in Dry or Lubricated Sliding", ASME J. Trib., 115, 78-82.
Doege, E., Romanowski, C. and Seidel, R., 1994,
"Tribological Investigation in Hot Die Forging", Proc.
Eurometalworking' 94, Udine, 07-119.
Dowson, D., 1979, History of Tribolouv, Longman Group
Ltd., London.
Dowson, D., 1997, "Progress in Tribology: A Historical
Perspective", in New Directions in Tribology, Proc. of the
First World Tribology Congress, Cambridge, ed. I.M.
Hutchings, 3-20.
El-Kalay, A. K. E. H. A. and Sparling, L. G. M., 1968,
"Factors Affecting Friction and Their Effect upon Load,
Torque, and Spread in Hot Flat Rolling", J. Iron Steel
Inst., 43, 152-168
Evans, W. and Avitzur, B., 1968, "Measurement of Friction
in Drawing, Extrusion and Rolling", ASME J. Lub. Techn.,
90, 72-88.
Fuller, D.D.,1984, Theory and Practice of Lubrication for
Engineers, John Wiley, New York,
Gavrus, A,, Massoni, E. and Chenot, J.L., 1996, "An
Inverse Analysis Using a Finite Element Model for
Identification of Rheological Parameters", Proc. Metal
Forming'96, eds, Pietrzyk, M., Kusiak, J., Hartley, P. and
Pillinger, I., J. Mat. Proc. Techn., 60, 447-454.
Geiger, M., Engel, U. and Pfestorf, M., 1997, "New
Developments for the Qualification of Technical Surfaces
in Forming Processes", Annals of the CIRP, 46, 171-174.
Gelin, J.C. and Ghouati, O., 1994, "The Inverse Method for
Determining Viscoplastic Properties of Aluminium Alloys",
eds, Hartley, P., Pillinger, I., Sturgess, C.E.N., Hall, R.,
Pietrzyk, M. and Kusiak, J., Proc. Metal Forming'94,
Birmingham, J. Mat. Proc. Techn., 34, 435-440.
Gelin, J.C. and Ghouati, O., 1995, "Inverse Identification
Methods for Material Parameters Estimation in Large
Plastic Deformations", Proc. COMPLAS 4, eds, Owen,
D.R.J., Onate, E. and Hinton, E., Pineridge Press,
Barcelona, 767-778.
Gerved, G., 1985, "Analyse Af Friktions- Og TryMordeling
Ved Stukning", MM report No. 85.13, Technical
University of Denmark.
Ghosh M.K. and Gupta K., 1998, "Thermal Effect in
Hydrodynamic Lubrication of Line Contacts -
Piezoviscous Effect Neglected" Int. J. Mech. Sci., 40,
603-616.
Guminski , R.D. and Willis, J., 1959-60, "Development of
Cold Rolling Lubricants for Aluminum Alloys", Journal of
the Institute of Metals, 88, 481-492.
Gunasekera, J.S. and Mahadeva, S., 1988, "An Alternative
Method to Predict the Effects of Friction in Metal Forming",
Friction and Material Characterization, ASME, MD-Vol. 10,
55-62.
Hamaguchi, H., Spikes, H.A. and Cameron, A,, 1977,
"Elastohydrodynamic Properties of Water-in-Oil-
Emulsions", Wear, 43, 17-24.
Hansen, B.G. and Bay, N., 1986, "Two New Methods for
Testing Lubricants for Cold Forging", J. Mech. Working
Techn., 13, 189-204.
Harding,R.A., 1976, "Temperature and Structural
Changes in Hot Rolling", Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Sheffiel d, S heffield.
Heshmat, H., Godet M. and Berthier, Y., 1995, "On the
Role and Mechanism of Dry Triboparticulate Lubrication",
Lub. Engineering, 51, 557-564.
Hlady, C.O., 1995, "Heat Transfer in the Hot Rolling of
Metals", Metallurgical and Material Trans., 26B, 1019-1027.
Hum, B., Colquhoun, H.W. and Lenard, J.G., 1996,
"Measurements of Friction During Hot Rolling of
Aluminum Alloys", J. Mat. Proc. Techn., 60, 331-338.
Hutchings, I.M., 1992, Tribology: friction and wear of
engineering materials, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Januszkiewicz, K.R., Bekmesian, G., Heenan, D.F. and
Stratford, G., 1995, Lub. Eng., 669.673.
Jeng, Yeau-Ren, 1990, "Experimental Study of the
Effects of Surface Roughness on Friction", Trib. Trans.,
33, 402-410.
Jeswiet,J., 1991, "A Friction Sensor for Sheet Metal
Rolling", Annals of the CIRP, 40, 231-234.
Jeswiet, J., 1998, "A Comparison of Friction Coefficients
in Cold Rolling", Proc. 7th Int. Metal Forming 98,
Birmingham, eds. P. Hartley, I. Pillinger, F.R. Hall, Neal-
Sturgess, C.E., M. Pietrzyk and J. Kusiak, 239-244.
Jeswiet, J., Wild. P. and Sefton, H., 2000, "Sensing
Friction: methods and devices", Int. Workshop on Friction
and Flowstress in Cutting and Forming, Paris, 2000, 111-
118.
Karagiozis, A.N., 1986, "Experimental Determination of
the Strip Temperature Distribution", MASC. Thesis,
University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB.
Karagiozis,A.N. and Lenard,J.G., 1988, "Temperature
Distribution in a Slab During Hot Rolling", ASME, J. Eng.
Mat. Techn., 110, 17-21.
Karagiozis, A.N. and Lenard, J.G., 1985, "The Effect of
Material Properties on the Coefficient of Friction in Cold
Rolling", Proc. Eurotrib'95, Lyon, 1-7.
Kellow, M.A., Bramley, A.N. and Bannister, F.K., 1969,
"The Measurement of Temperature in Forging Dies", Int.
J. Mach. Tool Des. Res., 9, 239-260.
Kihara, J., 1990, "Tribological Problems Relating with
Physical and Chemical Interaction among the Tool, the
Workpiece and the Lubricant", Advanced Technology of
Plasticity, 4, 1693-1702.
Khoddam, S., Lam, Y.C. and Thomson, P.F., 1996,
"Numerical Results Achieved with an Inverse
Computational Method for Determining the Constitutive
Parameters using the Hot Torsion Test Results", steel
research, 67, 39-43.
Klafs, U., 1969, "A Contribution to the Determination of
the Temperature Distribution in the Tool and Workpiece
in Warm Forging", Doctoral Dissertation, Technical
University of Hanover, (in German).
Komvopoulos, K., Saka, N. and Suh, N.P., 1985, "The
Mechanism of Friction in Biundary Lubrication", ASME J.
Tri b., 107, 452-462.
Kondo, S., 1975, "An Improvement of Rolling Stability
During Cold Rolling of Aluminium", ASME J. Lub.
Technology, 37-43.
Kopp, R. and Philipp, F-D., 1992, "Physical Parameters
and Boundary Conditions for the Numerical Solution of
Hot Forming Processes", steel research, 63, 392-398.
Krim, J., 1997, "Friction at the Atomic Scale", Lubrication
Engineering, 8-13.
Krzyzanowski, M. and Beynon, J.H., 1999a, "Finite
Element Model of Steel Oxide Failure During Tensile
Testing under Hot Rolling Conditions", Mat. Sci. and
Techn., 15, 1191-1198.
Krzyzanowski, M. and Beynon, J.H., 1999b, "The tensile
failure of mild steel oxides under hot rolling conditions",
steel research, 70, 22-27.
Kumar A,, Schmid S.R. and Wilson W.R.D., 1997,
"Particle Behavior in Two-Phased Lubrication", Wear,
206, 130-135.
Kusiak, J., Pietrzyk, M. and Lenard, J.G., 1995,
"Application of FE Simulation of the Compression Test to
the Evaluation of Constitutive Equations for Steels at
Elevated Temperatures", Proc. NUMIFORM'95, eds,
Shen, S.F. and Dawson, P.R., Ithaca, 277-282.
Laemmle, J., 1992, "Metalworking Lubricants", Metals
Handbook, Vol. 18, ASM.
Lange, K., Cser. L., Geiger, M. and Kals, J.A.G., 1992,
"Tool life and Tool Quality in Bulk Metal Forming",
Annals of the CIRP, 41, 667-675 (keynote presentation).
Lazzarotto, J., Dubar, L., Dubois, A,, Ravassard, P. and
Oudin, J., 1998, "Three Selection Criteria for the Cold
Metal Forming Lubricating Oils Containing Extreme
Pressure Agents", ", Proc. 7th Int. Metal Forming 98,
Birmingham, eds. P. Hartley, I. Pillinger, F.R. Hall, Neal-
Sturgess, C.E., M. Pietrzyk and J. Kusiak, 245-250.
Lenard, J.G., 1990, "An Experimental Study of Boundary
Conditions in Hot and Cold Flat Rolling", Annals of the
CIRP, 39, 279-282.
Lenard, J.G., 1991, "Measurements of Friction in Cold
Flat Rolling", J. Mater. Shaping Technol., 9, 171-180.
Lenard, J.G. and Davies, M. E., 1995, "The Distribution
of Temperatures in a HotKold Die Set: the Effect of the
Pressure, Temperature and the Material", ASME J. Eng.
Mat. and Techn., 117, 220-227.
Lenard, J.G., Pietrzyk, M. and Cser, L., 1999,
Mathematical and Physical Simulation of the Properties
of Hot Rolled Products, Elsevier, Oxford.
Lenard J.G. and Z. Malinowski, 1993, "Measurements of
Friction During Warm Rolling of Aluminum", J. Mat. Proc.
Techn., 39, 357-371.
Li, G-Y., 1999, "Analytical Equations for On-line
Modelling of Friction in Cold Rolling", Proc. Modelling of
Metal Rolling Processes 3, London, IOM
Communications, eds. J.H. Beynon, M.T. Clark, P.
Ingham, P. Kern and K. Waterson, 370-379.
Li, Y.H. and Sellars, C.M., 1995, "Evaluation of Interfacial
Heat Transfer and Friction Conditions and their effects
on Hot Forming Processes", 37th MWSP Conf., Hamilton,
ISI, 385-393.
Li, Y.H. and Sellars, C.M., 1998, "Comparative
Investigations of Interfacial Heat Transfer Behaviour
during Hot Forging and Rolling of Steel with Oxide Scale
Formation", Proc. 7th Int. Metal Forming 98, Birmingham,
eds. P. Hartley, I. Pillinger, F.R. Hall, Neal-Sturgess,
C.E., M. Pietrzyk and J. Kusiak, 282-286.
Li, Y.H. and Sellars, C.M., 1999, "Modelling Surface
Temperatures during Hot Rolling of Steel", Modelling of
Metal Rolling Processes 3, IOM Communications,
London, eds: J.H. Beynon, M.T. Clark, P. Ingham, P.
Kern, K. Waterson, 178-186.
Lim, L.S. and Lenard, J.G., 1984, "Study of Friction in Cold
Strip Rolling", ASME J. Eng. Mat. Techn., 106, 139-146.
Lin, J.F., Huang, T.K. and Hsu, C.T., 1991, Evaluation of
Lubricants in Cold Strip Rolling, Wear, 147,79-91.
Lu, S.S. and Chuang, Y.H., 1985, "Effects of Surface
Roughness on Lubrication in the Cold Rolling of Metals",
ASME J. Tribology, 107, 522-526.
Lugt, P.M., Wemekamp, A.W., ten Napel, W.E., van
Liempt, P. and Otten, J.B., 1993, "Lubrication in Cold
Rolling: Elasto-Plasto-Hydrodynamic Lubrication of
Smooth Surfaces", Wear, 166, 203-214.
Loung, L. H. S. and Heijkoop, T., 1981, "The Influence of
Scale on Friction in Hot Metalworking", Wear, 71, 93-102.
Makinouchi, A,, Ike, H., Murakawa, M., Koga, N. and
Ciupik, L.F., 1987, "Finite Element Analysis of Flattening
of Surface Asperities by Rigid Dies in Metal Working
Processes", Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Technology of
Plasticity, Stuttgart, ed. K. Lange, 1, 59-66.
Male, A.T., 1962, "The Friction of Metals Undergoing
Plastic Deformation at Elevated Temperatures", Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Male, A.T. and Cockroft, M.G., 1964, "A Method for
Determination of the Coefficient of Friction of Metals Under
Conditions of Bulk Plastic Deformation," Journal of the
Institute of Metals, 93, 38-46.
Malinowski, Z. and Lenard, J.G., 1993, "Experimental
Substantiation of an Elastoplastic Finite Element Scheme
for Flat Rolling", Comput. Meths. Appl. Mech. Eng., 104,
1-17.
Malinowski, Z., Kusiak, J. and Pietrzyk, M., 1995,
"Application of the Inverse Techniques to the Experimental
Tests", Proc. Conf. Application of Mathematical Methods in
Science and Technique, Krakow, v01.2, 43-52.
Martins, J.A.C., Oden, J.T. and SimBes, F.M.F., 1990, "A
Study of Static and Kinetic Friction", Int. J. Engng. Sci.,
28, 29-92.
Marton, L., 1988, A surlodastol a triboloqiaig, Dacia, Cluj
(in Hungarian)
Matsui, K., Matsushita, T., Takatsuka K. and Yamaguchi,
Y., 1984, "Evaluation of Lubricants for Rolling of
Aluminum Sheet and Foil", Advanced Technology of
Plasticity, 1, 247-252.
Matsuno, F., 1980, "Blistering and Hydraulic Removal of
Scale Films of Rimmed Steel at High Temperature",
Trans. ISIJ, 20, 41 3-421.
Mortier, R.M., and Orszulik, S.T., 1992, Chemistry and
Technology of Lubricants, Blackie and Sons, Glasgow.
Mrowec, S. and Przybylski, K., 1977, Oxid Metals, 11,
383.
Munther, P. and Lenard, J.G., 1995, "Tribology during
Hot, Flat Rolling of Steels", ClRP Annals, 44, 213-216.
Murata,K., Morise,H., Mitsutsuka,M., Naito,H.,
Komatsu,T. and Shida,S., 1984, "Heat Transfer Between
Metals in Contact and its Application to Protection of
Rolls", Trans. ISIJ, 24:B-309
Nagamatsu, A,, Murota, T. and Jimma, T., 1970, "On the
Non-Uniform Deformation of Block in Plane-Strain
Compression Caused by Friction-ll", JSME Bulletin, 13,
1396-1405.
Nakahara, T., Makino, T. and Kyogoku, K., 1988,
"Observations of Liquid Droplet Behavior and Oil Film
Formation in O W Type Emulsion Lubrication", ASME J.
Trib., 110, 348-353.
Nautiyal, P.C. and Schey, J.A., 1990, "Transfer of
Aluminum to Steel in Sliding Contact: Effects of
Lubricant', ASME J. Trib., 112, 282-287.
Overney, R. and Meyer, E., 1993, "Tribological
Investigations Using Friction Force Microscopy", MRS
Bulletin, XVIII, 26-34.
Painter, B., Shivpuri, R. and Altan, T., 1996, "Prediction
of Die Wear During Hot-Extrusion of Engine Valves", J.
Mat. Proc. Techn., 59, 132-143.
Pawelski, O., 1964, "Ein Neues Gerat zum Messen des
Reibungsbeiwertes bei Plastischen Formanderungen",
Stahl und Eisen, 84, part 2, 1233-1243 (in German).
Pawelski, O., Rasp, W., and Hoerster, C., 1989, "The Ring
Compression Test as Simulation Test for the Investigation
of Friction in Hot Metal Forming," steel research, 60, 395-
402.
Pawelski, O., Rasp, W. and Draese. S. 1994, "Influence
of Hydrodynamic Lubricant Entrainment on Friction
Effects in Cold Rolling", steel research, 65, 488-494.
Pietrzyk, M. and Lenard, J.G., 1988, "Experimental
Substantiation of Modelling Heat Transfer in Hot Flat
Rolling", Proc. 251'~Nat. Heat Transfer Conf., Houston,
ed. Jacobs, H.R., HTD-96, 3, 47-53.
Pietrzyk, M. and Lenard, J.G., 1990, "The Effect of the
Temperature Rise of the Roll on the Simulation of the
Flat Rolling Process", J. Mat. Proc. Techn., 22, 177-190.
Pietrzyk, M. and Lenard, J.G., 1991, Thermal-Mechanical
Modelling of the Flat Rollinq, Process, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Popilek, M.E., Weinmann, K. J. and Majlessi, S.A., 1992,
"A Friction Test, Based on Combined Backward Can -
Forward Bar Extrusion with Emphasis on Backward
Flow", Trans. NAMRI, XX, 25-31.
Post-Pedersen, B., Wanheim, T. and Bay, N., 1997, "A
Friction Test for Warm and Hot Forging", Proc. of the
Baltic Sea Metal Forming and Cutting Seminar, Warsaw,
18/1-13.
Preisendanz, H., Schuler, P. and Koschnitzke, K., 1967,
"Calculation of Temperature Variations at the Surface of
Hot Ingots During Contact with Rolls", Arch.
Eisenhuttenwesen, 38, 205-21 3.
Rabinowicz, E., 1965, Friction and Wear of Materials, John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Rabinowicz, E., 1982, ASME/ASLE Lub. Conference,
Washington.
Rabinowicz, E., 1995, Friction and Wear of Materials, 2nd
ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Ranney, M.W., 1978, Lubricant Additives, Noyes Data
Corporation, New Jersey.
Ratoi-Salagean, M. and Spikes, H.A., 1997, "Optimizing
Film Formation by Oil-in-Water Emulsions", Tribology
Transactions, 40, 569-578.
Reid, J.V., and Schey, J.A., 1978, "Full Fluid Film
Lubrication in Aluminum Strip Rolling", ASLE Trans., 21,
191-200.
Roberts, C.D., 1997, "Mechanical Principles of Rolling",
Iron and Steelmaker, 24, 113-114.
Roberts, W.L., 1978, Cold Rolling of Steel, Marcel
Dekker, New York.
Roberts, W.L., 1983, Hot Rolling of Steel, Marcel Dekker,
Inc., New York.
Rowe, G.W., 1977, Principles of Industrial Metalworking
Processes, Edward Arnold, London.
Ruina, A.L., 1985, "Constitutive Relations for Frictional
Slip", Ch. 9 in Mechanics of Geomaterials, ed. Z. Bazant,
John Wiley and Sons, 169-188.
Sa, C-Y. and Wilson, W.R.D., 1994, "Full Film Lubrication
of Strip Rolling", ASME J. Trib., 116, 569-576.
Salmeron, M., 1993, "Use of the Atomic Force
Microscope to Study Mechanical Properties of Lubricant
Layers", MRS Bulletin, XVIII, 20-25.
Sanchez, L.R., Weinmann, K.J. and Story, J.M., 1985, "A
Friction Test for Extrusion Based on Combined Forward
and Backward Flow", Proc. NAMRC XIII, 110-117.
Sato, H. and 0-Hori, M., 1982, "Surface Roughness
Measurement by Scanning Electron Microscope", Annals
of the CIRP, 31, 457-462.
Sato, H. and 0-Hori, M., 1986, "Measurement of Surface
Shape by Scanning Electron Microscopy Using Detection
of Normal", Annals of the CIRP, 35, 365-368.
Sato, H. and 0-Hori, M., 1987, "Surface Roughness
Measurement Using Scanning Electron Microscope with
Digital Processing", ASME, J. Eng. Ind., 109, 106-111.
Schey, J.A., 1983, Tribology in Metalworking, ASM,
Metals Park, Ohio.
Schmid S.R. and Wilson W.R.D., 1995, "Lubrication of
Aluminum Rolling by Oil-in-Water Emulsions" Tribology
Transaction, 38, 452-458.
Schmid S.R. and Wilson W.R.D., 1996, "Lubrication
Mechanism for Oil-in Water Emulsions" Lub. Eng., 52,
168-175.
Schmid, S.R., 1997, "Hydrodynamic Segregation,
Entrainment and Rejection of Oil in Emulsion Lubrication
Problems", ASME J. Trib., 119, 432-348.
Schroeder, W. and Webster, D.A., 1949, "Press-Forging
Thin Sections: Effect of Friction, Area and Thickness on
Pressures Required," ASME, J. Appl. Mech., 16, 289-294.
Schunke, J.N., Sudarshan, T.S. and Srivatsan, T.S., 1988,
Wear, 128, 211-221.
Sellars, C. M., 1985, "Computer Modelling of Hot-Working
Processes", Mat. Sci. and Techn., 1, 325-332.
Semiatin S.L., Collings, E.W., Wood V.E. and Altan, T.
1987, "Determination of the Interface Heat Transfer
Coefficient for Non-Isothermal Bulk-Forming
Processes",Trans. ASME, J. Eng. Ind. 109, 949-57.
Shaesby, J. S., Boggs, W. E., and Turkdogan, E. T.,
1984, "Scale Growth on Steels at 1200°C: Rationale of
Rate and Morphology", Met. Sci., 18, 127-136.
Sheu, S., Hector, L.G. and Richmond, O., 1998, "Tool
Surface Topographies for Controlling Friction and Wear
in Metal Forming Processes", ASME, J. Tribology, 120,
517-527.
Shirizly, A. and Lenard, J.G., 1999, "Emulsions Versus
Neat Oils in the Cold Rolling of Carbon Steel Strips", in
print, ASME J. Tribology.
Siebel, E., and Lueg, W., 1933, "Investigations into the
Distribution of Pressure at the Surface of the Material in
Contact with the Rolls", Mitt. K.W. Inst. Eisenf., 15, 1-14.
Siegert, K. and Wagner, S., 1999, "Development of a
Portable Sensor for the Three-Dimensional
Measurement of Sheet and Tool Surfaces", Proc.
Advances in Sheet Metal Stamping, Detroit, 1-10,
Silvonen,A., Malinen,A. and Korhonen,A.S., 1987, "A
Finite Element Study of Plane Strain Hot Rolling",
Scand. J. Metal., 16, 103-108.
So B.Y.C. and Klaus E.E., 1980, ASLE Transactions, 23
409-421.
Stancu-Niederkorn, S., Engel, U. and Geiger, M., 1993,
"A New Method for Investigating the Relation Between
Real Contact Area and Friction in Bulk Metal Forming
Processes", Wire, 43, 381-386.
Stancu-Niederkorn, S., Engel, U. and Geiger, M., 1994,
"Ultrasonic Investigation of Friction Mechanism in Metal
Forming", J. Mater. Process. Technol., 45, 61 3-618.
Stevens,P.G., Ivens,K.P. and Harper,P.J., 1971,
"Increasing Work-Roll Life by Improved Roll Cooling
Practice", JISI., 209, 1-11.
Stephenson, D.A., 1983, "Friction in Cold Strip Rolling",
Wear, 92, 293-31 1.
Sutcliffe, M.P.F., 1999, "Flattening of Random Surfaces
in Metal Forming Processes", ASME, J. Tribology, 12,
433-440.
Sutcliffe, M.P.F., 2000, "A Two-Wavelength Model of
Surface Flattening in Cold Metal Rolling with Mixed
Lubrication", in press, Trib. Trans.
Tabary, P.E., Sutcliffe, M.P.F. , Porral, F. and Deneuville,
P., 1996, "Measurments of of Friction in Cold Rolling of
Metals", ASME J. Trib., 118, 629-636.
Tan, X., Martins, P.A.F., Bay, N. and Zhang, W., 1998,
"Friction Studies at Different Normal Pressures with
Alternative Ring Compression Tests", ", Proc. 7'h Int.
Metal Forming 98, Birmingham, eds. P. Hartley, I.
Pillinger, F.R. Hall, C.E. Neal-Sturgess, M. Pietrzyk and
J. Kusiak, 292-297.
Theocaris, P.S., Stassinakis, C.A. and Mamalis, A.G.,
1983, "Roll-pressure Distribution and Coefficient of
Friction in Hot Rolling by Caustics", Int. J. Mech. Sci., 11,
833-844.
Theocaris, P.S., Mamalis, A.G. and Stassinakis, C.A. and
1984, "On the Pressure Distribution and Coefficient of
Friction Between Stock and Rolls in Ingot Hot-Rolling",
Advanced Technology of Plasticity, 1, 321-326.
Touloukian, Y.S. and Buyco, E.H., 1970,
Thermomechanical Properties of Matter, vo1.4 Specific
Heat - Metallic Elements and Allovs, IF1 Plenum, New Yan S. and Kuroda S., 1997b, "Lubrication With
York - Washington. Emulsion: II. The Viscosity Coefficients of Emulsions"
Wear, 206, 238-243.
Touloukian, Y.S. Kirby, R.K., Taylor, R.E., and Desai,
P.D., 1970, Thermomechanical Properties of Matter, vol. Yoneyama, T. and Hatamura, Y., 1987, "The
12 Thermal Expansion - Metallic Elements and Alloys, IF1 Development of a Die Sensor", JSME International, 30,
Plenum, New York - Washington. 670-677.
Touloukian, Y.S., Powell, R.W., Ho, C.Y. and Klemens, Yoneyama, T. and Hatamura, Y., 1989, "Measurement of
P.G., 1970, Thermomechanical Properties of Matter, Actual Stress and Temperature on the Roll Surface
vol.1 Thermal Conductivitv - Metallic Elements and During Rolling", JSME International, 32, 113-117.
Allovs, IF1 Plenum, New York - Washington.
Yuen, W.Y.D., Popelianski, Y. and Prouten, M., 1996,
van Rooyen, G.T. and Backofen, W.A., 1957, "Friction in "Variations of Friction in the Roll Bite and Their Effects
Cold Rolling", J. Iron and Steel Inst., 186, 235-244. on Cold Strip Rolling", Iron and Steelmaker, 33-39.
Venugopal, S., Srinivasan, G., Venkadesan, S. and Zhang, W. and Bay, N., 1997, "Numerical Analysis of
Seetharaman, V., 1989, "A Note of the Determination of Cross Shear Plate Rolling", Annals of the CIRP, 46/1,
Friction Factor by Means of the Reduction-Capacity Test", 195-200.
J. Mech. Working Techn., 19, 261-266.
Zhang, S. and Lenard, J.G., 1996, "Reduction of the Roll
Vigor, C.W. and Hornaday, J.W., 1961, Temperature. its Force during Lubricated Cold Rolling of Aluminum
Measurement and Control, Reinhold, New York. Strips", J. Synthetic Lubrication, 12, 303-321.
Wan, G.T.Y., Kenny, P. and Spikes, H.A., 1984, Zhu D., Biresaw G., Clark S.J. and Kasun T.J., 1994,
"Elastohydrodynamic Properties of Water-Based Fire- "Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication With ONV Emulsion"
Resistant Hydraulic Fluids", Trib. h t . , 17, 309-315. Journal of Tribology, 116, 310-319.
Wang, D. 1983, "Methods for Measurement of the
Coefficient of Friction in Plastic Deformation," The 3rd
Acknowledgements
Forging Annual Meeting, Xi'an, China, Chinese Society of
Mechanical Engineering
Wang, F. and Lenard, J.G., 1992, "An Experimental Study The financial assistance of NSERC of Canada, Imperial
of Interfacial Friction - Hot Ring Compression", ASME J. Oil and NATO is acknowledged with thanks.
Eng. Mat. Techn., 114, 13-18.
Wang S.H., Szeri A.Z. and Rajagopal K.R., 1993,
"Lubrication With Emulsion in Cold Rolling" J. of
Tri bology, 115, pp. 523-531.
Wanheim, T., 1973, "Friction at High Normal Pressures",
Wear, 25, 225-244.
Wanheim, T., Bay, N. and Petersen, A.S., 1974, "A
Theoretically Determined Model for Friction in Metal
Working Processes", Wear, 28, 251-258.
Wanheim, T. and Bay, N., 1978, "A Model for Friction in
Metal Forming Processes", Annals of the CIRP, 27, 189-
194.
Wankhede, U. and Samarasekera, I.V., 1997, "Thermal
Behavior of High Speed Steel Work Rolls in the Finishing
Stands of a Hot Strip Mill", Iron and Steelmaker, 24, 55-60.
Wilson, W.R.D. and Sheu, S., 1988, "Real Area of Contact
and Boundary Friction in Metal Forming", Int. J. Mech. Sci.,
30, 475-489.
Wilson, W.R.D., 1995, "Lubrication in metal forming", in
Lubricants and Lubrication, ed. D. Dowson, Elsevier
Science BV.
Wu, C.S. Klaus E.E. and Duda, J.L, 1989, ASME J. Trib.,
111 121-128.
Wusatowski, Z., 1969, Fundamentals of Rollinq,
Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Yamamoto, H. and Uehori, Y., 1989, "Analyses of
Friction Coefficients and Lubrication Control in Cold
Rolling of Metal Strip", Proc. Eurotrib 85, 464-469.
Yan S. and Kuroda S., 1997a, "Lubrication With
Emulsion: First Report, The Extended Reynolds
Equation" Wear, 206, 230-237.