Stretch Levelers Set-up based on FE Modeling and applied to stainless steel strips

at ArcelorMittal Gueugnon

Anthony Parrico, Eliette Mathey

ArcelorMittal Maizières Research SA
Voie Romaine, BP 30320
57283 Maizières-les-Metz, France
Phone (+33) 3 87 70 42 49
Fax (+33) 3 87 70 41 01
E-mail: anthony.parrico@arcelormittal.com

Key words: leveling, flatness defect, modeling, elongation, tension, Finite Element

INTRODUCTION

Leveling is a process that is essential to get a good flatness in our flat steel products. However, it is really difficult to identify the best
way to flatten a strip or to correct a particular defect (center buckles, wavy edges…). There are lots of leveling machines that can be
used such as:
- Classical Leveler: A succession of bending are applied to the strip in order to reduce the internal
stresses ensuring a good flatness after the cutting process,
- Stretch Leveler: The strip is stretched (elongation as applied thanks to S-blocks having different
rotation speed) and bent on several rolls in order to remove flatness defect such as center buckles or
wavy edges.
- Multi Roll Leveler: The machine is equal to the classical leveler excepted that tension is applied to the
strip inducing an elongation.

In 2007, we developed a 3D Model of a Stretch Leveler, with the ArcelorMittal plant located at Gueugnon in France, in order to know
the best parameters to use to get the best flatness. The model had to include all the rolls of the stretch leveler (from the skin pass to the
anti coil-set roll) and take into account several parameters such as strip properties (width, thickness, young modulus, yield stress), rolls
parameters (dimensions, movable or not, motorized or not) and tension values or elongation submitted.

CONCEPTION OF A FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF A STRETCH LEVELER

We used a Finite Element software called ABAQUS explicit that is suitable for dynamic problems: so that will allow us to have a look
on the flatness evolution and lots of other outputs such as stresses applied, elongation submitted, curvatures reached…during the strip
movement across the rolls. In the application, the strip is modeled with Shell Elements and has the properties below:
- Width: 1 meter,
- Thickness : 0.5 mm,
- Young Modulus: 200 000 Mpa,
- Yield Stress: 300 Mpa.
Then, rolls are modeled in rigid bodies as we assumed that rolls deformations could be neglected. You can see below the model
including the strip and the 15 rolls.
 Inflatable roll

Movable roll
Figure 1. Finite Element Model of a Stretch Leveler including a strip and 15 rolls

Then in order to know the way a flatness defect can be corrected, we decided to model center buckles (See the picture below). This
defect is modeled on a part of the strip having a length of 35 m and located just before the first roll. The part of the strip that is already
in the stretch leveler does not have any defect. It is just used to start the simulation and show the path to the part of the strip having the
center buckles defect. Of course, we can model lots of other flatness defect, but in this study we only simulated one kind of defect.

Stretched edge

Center Buckles

Figure 2. Modeling of a center buckles defect with the software ABAQUS

In order to quantify the defect modeled we used the units UI, which can be calculated (assuming that the defect has perfect sinusoidal
shape), thanks to the formula below. We started with the simulation of a center buckles defect having a wavelength of 100 cm and an
amplitude h equal to 20mm: this induces a defect value of 100 UI.

λ
2 2
π h 5
P= .10 (UI ) (1)
4 λ2 h

With λ in cm and h in mm.

Figure 3. Method to calculate a flatness defect value in UI

Then, the simulation has been divided into 3 Steps:

 - Step 1: Forces are applied to the strip at each side in order to simulate the tension in the stretch leveler. In our
case, the tension applied is a Shell Edge Load with of 25 N/m. The strip thickness is 0.5 mm so it is the
same as having a tension of 50 Mpa.
- Step 2: We change the position of the movable if necessary (depending on the intermesh we want to simulate)
and we introduce the rotation speed in the rolls in order to induce a given elongation. During this step,
the strip will move thanks to the friction coefficient of 0.3 that we introduced in the contact between
the strips and the rolls.
- Step 3: When the strip part located before the stretch leveler and having center buckles went through the 15
rolls, we stop the rotation speed that we introduced in the rolls during the previous step, and we release
the tension forces as well in order to have a look on the shape of the strip after the stretch leveler. By
comparison with the initial shape, we can conclude on the capacity of the stretch leveler to reduce
flatness defect, and we can even study the impact of the several parameters of the stretch leveler.

CALCULATION OF THE TOTAL ELONGATION TO USE IN THE SIMULATIONS

Before starting to do simulations, we had to determine an elongation to use in order to get the elongation they had at ArcelorMittal
Gueugnon plant. First of all, we have to know that the elongation in a stretch leveler is due to different rotation speed in S-Blocks.
Indeed, we have for example an elongation of 0.1%, when:
ω
2 = 1.001
ω
1
V .1000
With ω = (2)
1 60.R
1
(V = line speed in m/min and R1= roll radius in mm)

So for example if the line speed is V=150m/min and the rolls diameters are 300m, we will have:
ω1 = 8.333rad / s And ω = 8.342rad / s
2
ω2

ω1

Figure 4. Elongation calculation on an S-Block

We wanted to simulate a total elongation along the Stretch Leveler of 0.2%, distributed in 4 S-Blocks. However, if we want to get an
actual elongation of 0.2%, we need to apply a higher value in order to compensate the strip sliding on the rolls. So we did some
simulations with the software Abaqus, in order to find a suitable value inducing an actual elongation of 0.2%. After several tests, we
finally achieved to get a final elongation of 0.2%. The elongation that we needed to impose on the S-Blocks was 0.4% distributed in
the four S-Blocks of the Stretch Leveler (so 0.1% per S-Blocks).
On the graph below you can see a result from an Abaqus simulation, showing the elongation submitted to the strip along the Stretch
Leveler. The three curves drawing are the elongation of the top side, bottom side and center of the strip. (See the graph below).

Remark: This topic is really important as thanks to the simulations, we noticed that the elongation we can calculate with the speed
differential in the S-Blocks is not the same as the one that is really submitted to the strip. Indeed, the contact between the strip and the
rolls is not perfect, so they may be some sliding that will induce a smaller elongation than the one expected. In the Abaqus
simulations, the relation between the actual elongation and the one that is imposed due to the speed differential in the S-Blocks
(imposed elongation) is depending on the friction coefficient we use in the software. That is why in 2008, we decided to do some test
on ArcelorMittal Gueugnon Stretch Leveler, to calculate the actual elongation in order to fix the friction coefficient in our software.
Afterwards, we will be able to do really accurate simulations, as the actual and imposed elongations simulated will be the same as the
one on the Stretch Leveler.
 R1 R2 R3 R5 R8 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15
Plastic strain (in %) 0.25% R4 R6 R7 R9 R10

0.20%

0.15%

0.10% Bottom Side

Neutral axis
Top Side
R1

0.05%

0.00%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Simulation time (in second)
Figure 5. Actual Elongation of the strip along the stretch leveler for a submitted elongation of 0.4% (Abaqus Simulation)

Thanks to this kind of results, we can see that the actual elongation is smaller than the imposed one (0.4%) due to the sliding between
the strip and the rolls. These results have been found, using a friction coefficient equal to 0.3.
Moreover, such a graph shows the elongation differences in the strip thickness: we can conclude on the shape of the strip after the
stretch Leveler. For example on this graph, the top side will be more elongated than the bottom side: it will induce a positive longbow.

EFFECT OF THE MOVABLE ROLL ON THE FINAL FLATNESS

First of all, we decided to test the movable roll and have a look on the relation between the intermesh used and the flatness defect
correction. We started with some tests using a strip having a flatness defect of 100 UI. However even with an intermesh of 0mm for
the movable roll, we got no defect at the end of the leveler. We concluded that the correction capability of such a stretch leveler is
really high as a 100UI center buckles defect is corrected even without using the movable roll.
Then, we simulated a strip having a flatness defect of 250 UI. But the defect was entirely corrected with an intermesh of 40mm for the
movable roll. If we consider that the maximum intermesh value is 100mm, we can easily notice that it is not enough to study the
impact of this movable roll on the final flatness. So we decided to increase our defect at the entry of the leveler, in order to be able to
calculate a defect at the end, even with a high intermesh value close to the maximum one. Indeed, our main goal is to have a look on
the relation between the intermesh value of the movable roll and the defect after the 15th roll.
So, we did lots of simulations with different intermesh values and we calculated the value (in UI) of the flatness defect at the end of
the leveler. The results are summarized in the table below:

Table I. Defect correction capability of the movable roll calculated thanks to the software ABAQUS
Intermesh of the movable roll (in mm) Flatness defect at the entry (in UI) Flatness defect at the exit (in UI)
0 395 148
20 395 150
40 395 115
60 395 111
80 395 118
100 395 121
On the table above, we can notice that the center buckles defect correction is not linear with the intermesh value. First of all, we can
see that even without using the movable roll (intermesh value equal to 0), we can reduce a center buckles defect from 395UI to 148UI.
This shows that this stretch leveler as a really high defect correction capability. Moreover, we can see that the exit defect decreases
when the intermesh value is between 0 and 40mm. However, it seems that using an intermesh value higher than 40 mm, do not induce
a higher defect correction.
So in order to find an explanation of such results, we decided to have a look on the curvature reached by the strip along the stretch
leveler, as we know that the correction of a defect is due to the fact that we induce a cross section area plastically deformed in the
strip, which depends on the curvatures reached:
⎛ 2σ 0 ⎞
Cross _ Section _ Area _ Plastically _ deformed = ⎜1 − ⎟.100 (%) (3)
⎝ h.E.K ⎠
With h=strip thickness; E=Young Modulus; σ0=Yield stress; K=curvature reached.

So, we can say that the highest curvature reached by the strip will induce the highest cross section area plastically deformed, inducing
a defect correction. We can see below the curvature analysis done with the software Abaqus, close to the movable roll. We focused on
this area as the movable roll position is the only difference between each test, so the correction capability differences must be due to a
phenomenon in this area:

Movable roll

Intermesh=0
Intermesh=20
Intermesh=40
Curvature reached

Intermesh=60
Intermesh=80

5.00E+03 -4.50E+03 -4.00E+03 -3.50E+03 -3.00E+03 -2.50E+03 -2.00E+03 -1.50E+03 -1.00E+03 -5.00E+02 0.00E+00

distance (in mm)

Figure 6. Curvature analysis for the several intermesh value using the software ABAQUS

We can notice that the maximum curvature is reached on the roll just before the movable roll: that is this curvature that will induce the
maximum cross section area plastically deformed and as a consequence the defect correction differences. If we have a look on the
table below we can see the curvature radius calculated from the graph above thanks to the formula:

1
Curvature _ radius = (mm) (4)
Curvature
 Table II. Curvature radius reached by the strip on the rolls close to the movable one
Curvature radius on Curvature radius on Curvature radius on Curvature radius Curvature radius on
Roll 1 Roll 2 Roll 3 on Movable Roll Roll 5
Intermesh = 0mm 300 mm 248 mm 394 mm 6000 mm 500 mm
Intermesh = 20mm 300 mm 258 mm 301 mm 766 mm 500 mm
Intermesh = 40mm 300 mm 273 mm 216 mm 655 mm 500 mm
Intermesh = 60mm 300 mm 271 mm 200 mm 497 mm 500 mm
Intermesh = 80mm 300 mm 271 mm 200 mm 497 mm 500 mm

We can see that the minimum curvature radius is reached on the roll 3 (just before the movable roll). Moreover, we can see that for
intermeshes between 40mm and 80mm, the curvature radius reached on this roll 3 is close to 200mm that is the radius of the roll. This
means that when we have an intermesh of 40mm we are really close to the enrolment and the curvature radius can not be smaller. So
thanks to this analysis, we can conclude that the movable roll is efficient only from 0mm to 40mm. Moreover, it is not useful to use
higher intermesh value as it will not increase the defect correction capability, due to the fact that we reached the enrolment on the
roll3, so we will not be able to get smaller curvature radius.

EFFECT OF THE ELONGATION DISTRIBUTION ON THE FINAL FLATNESS

The second effect we wanted to study was the distribution of the elongation on the four S-Blocks. The main objective of this part was
to test several distributions and conclude on the one that induce the higher defect correction capability for the stretch leveler. In our
case, the total elongation of the line was distributed on four S-Blocks: one in the Area1 and three in the Area 2 (see the picture below).

S-Block 4
S-Block 3
S-Block 2
S-Block 1

Area 1 Area 2
Figure 7. Distribution of the S-Block along the Stretch Leveler

So we did several simulations in order to have a look on the influence of different distribution of the total elongation along the four S-
Blocks. We used the same model, with a strip having an initial center buckles defect of 395UI, and we did the four elongation
distributions below:

- Test 1: No Elongation in any S-Blocks. We did this test in order to check if a defect can be corrected without using
elongation. We should be able to know the part of the correction due to the elongation and the one due to the combined
effects of tension and bending on rolls.
- Test 2: Total elongation in Area 1 and no elongation in Area2. We simulated an elongation of 0.4% in the S-Block1 and no
elongation in the three others.
- Test3: Equal distribution of the total elongation in the four S-Blocks: it means 0.1% in each one.
- Test4: Total elongation in Area2. So no elongation in S-Block 1 and 0.4% in Area 2, distributed in its three S-Blocks.
 Table III. Effect of the elongation distribution on the defect correction capability (Abaqus simulations)
Distribution of the total elongation Defect correction capability
Elongation in Area1 Elongation in Area2 Initial defect (in UI) Final defect (in UI)
Test1 0.0% 0.0% 395 335
Test2 0.4% 0.0% 395 266
Test3 0.1% 0.3% 395 148
Test4 0.0% 0.4% 395 91

On the table above, we can see that the elongation distribution as an influence on the defect correction capability of the Stretch
Leveler. First of all, we can notice that even without using elongation the initial defect of 395UI can be reduced to 335UI: this
correction is due to the additional effect of tension and bending. However, we can see that the correction is not enough to correct high
flatness defects: that is why elongation on S-Blocks is essential. But we can notice that when the total elongation is done in Area1, we
can get a final flatness defect of 266UI, whereas we have only a defect of 91UI when the elongation is distributed in Area2. In order to
find an explanation to this phenomenon, we decided to have a look on the actual strip elongation along the stretch leveler during the
Abaqus simulations. The results are summarized in the table below:

Table IV. Comparisons between submitted and actual elongations (Abaqus simulations)
Distribution of the total elongation Elongation efficiency

Elongation in Area1 Elongation in Area2 Submitted Elongation Actual Elongation

Test1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07%

Test2 0.40% 0.00% 0.40% 0.14%
Test3 0.10% 0.30% 0.40% 0.25%
Test4 0.00% 0.40% 0.40% 0.31%

These results show that the differences in the defect correction capabilities noticed on the Figure9 are due to the fact that the actual
elongation is depending on the total elongation distribution. Indeed, we can notice that when an elongation of 0.4% is submitted in the
Area1, the strip undergoes only an actual elongation of 0.14%. On the contrary, in the Test4 (where the total elongation is distributed
in the S-Blocks of the Area2), the actual elongation undergone by the strip is equal to 0.31%, inducing a higher correction capability.
These results helped us to conclude on the fact that the best defect correction capability will be achieved when the total elongation is
done in the Area2.
CONCLUSIONS

Thanks to this study using a finite element model, we achieved to quantify the defect correction capability of a stretch leveler and we
have been able to get some conclusions on the way the machine has to be used to be more efficient. The first point was the influence
of the movable roll on the center buckles defect correction. We noticed that the movable roll was efficient until an intermesh value of
40mm, and that it was useless to use higher intermeshes as we already have enrolment at this position, so the curvature radius
undergone by the strip is equal to the roll radius, and can not be smaller. This conclusion has been done thanks to a curvature analysis
along the stretch leveler. The second conclusion was on the influence of the total elongation distribution in the several S-Blocks of the
stretch Leveler. Indeed we demonstrated that when the elongation is done in Area2, the actual elongation is higher, inducing a better
defect correction capability. For a given submitted elongation of 0.40%, the actual elongation is equal to 0.14% when it is done in
Area1, whereas we can get an actual elongation of 0.31% when it is done in Area2.
 PERSPECTIVES

This study was really interesting as it was the first time that a Stretch Leveler was modeled with the software Abaqus. Moreover, for
the first time we achieved to model flatness defects at the entry (such as center buckles or wavy edges). We are currently working on
other models simulating leveling machines such as Multi-Rolls Levelers and Classical Levelers (without traction) in order to find the
best way to flatten special products, as High Strength Steels for example.
Moreover, we can notice that on Abaqus, we can have a look on the strain undergone by the top side and the bottom side of the strip.
So this kind of information can indicate if a defect can be observed at the exit of the leveler: for example if the top side is more
elongated than the bottom side that will induce a negative longbow. Then, we just need to find a working point, where the top side
undergone the same elongation as the bottom side.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Nicolas Guedon and Gérard Szymczykowski from ArcelorMittal Gueugnon, who gave us all the information
needed to develop such a model.