University of Waterloo

Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering

ME340 - Manufacturing Processes
Lab 2: Rolling and Sheet Metal Forming
Prepared for: Professor Charles C.F. Kwan
Group 21 - Nimrat Gill, Aryaman Chaturani, Mayuran Sundaramohan, Alex Shatkin
Abstract

This lab was completed to analyze the effect of different parameters on three aluminum samples
that underwent both rolling and sheet bending processes. For the rolling process, it was
concluded that defects from rolling increased with increasing reduction percentage. Additionally,
increased rolling speed was found to reduce the roll separating force and lower residual stress on
the workpiece, producing a higher quality rolled part. Rolling speed also had an impact on the
springback factor observed during bending. It was determined from the sheet bending activity
that workpieces rolled at higher speeds experienced a lower springback factor than samples
which had undergone rolling at lower speeds.

1
Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Experiment ............................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Activity 1: Materials and Procedure ....................................................................................... 2
2.2 Activity 2: Materials and Procedure ....................................................................................... 2
2.3 Activity 3: Materials and Procedure ....................................................................................... 3
3.0 Results ................................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Activity 1: Rolling ............................................................................................................... 4
3.1.1 Friction Analysis ........................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Activity 2: Sheet Metal Bending ............................................................................................ 6
3.3 Activity 3: Anisotropy of Sheet Metals ................................................................................... 8
4.0 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 9
4.1 Activity 1 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Activity 2 Discussion ..........................................................................................................14
4.3 Activity 3 Discussion ..........................................................................................................17
5.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................18
References ..................................................................................................................................19
Appendix....................................................................................................................................20

2
List of Figures

Figure 1 Guide for bending rolled strips ......................................................................................... 3

Figure 2 The shape of the strips after bending around a die of diameter 62.7mm ......................... 6
Figure 3 Graph comparing the radius/thickness ratio and the springback factor ........................... 7
Figure 4 Aluminum samples prior to rolling .................................................................................. 9
Figure 5 Sample one and two displaying wavy edges .................................................................. 10
Figure 6 Sample two displaying edge cracks ................................................................................ 11

3
List of Tables

Table 1 Recorded sample data from the rolling activity ................................................................. 4

Table 2 Analytically calculated vs measured forces values for sample 1....................................... 4
Table 3 Analytically calculated vs measured forces values for sample 2....................................... 4
Table 4 Analytically calculated vs measured forces values for sample 3....................................... 5
Table 5 Measured and Theoretical data using Springback equation .............................................. 7
Table 6 Calculated yield stress of each sample ............................................................................ 16
Table 7 Yield stresses of working hardening designations ........................................................... 16
Table 8 Analytical calculations and additional values .................................................................. 20

4
1.0 Introduction
Sheet metal forming entails plastically deforming a material into a useful shape by altering the
geometry instead of getting rid of any material. Rolling, bending, ironing, laser cutting, and
hydroforming are all sheet metal forming processes. Rolling is a metal forming process where a
metal sheet is passed through a set of rolls in order to reduce the thickness of the sheet, have
uniform thickness, and/or to achieve an appropriate set of mechanical properties. It is similar to
the process of rolling dough.

Sheet metal bending uses external forces to change the shape of a sheet. It alters only the external
properties of the shape. The term stamping is a general way to describe all sheet metal processes
that include a press. The bend angle is the angle between the initial and the final position and it
was measured during the lab. The bend radius is the radius of the largest circle that fits on the
inside of the bend. Bend allowance is the length of material needed to form a bend. From
bending a springback factor is introduced. Springback is the tendency for a bent elastic material
to revert to its original form. If a material has no springback the springback factor will equal to 1.
An increasing springback will reduce the springback factor. The springback factor is equal to the
final alpha divided by the initial alpha.

The purpose of this lab is to analyze the effect of different material properties on the parameters
to achieve desired outcomes. This lab will also focus on determining what design considerations
need to be made so that any undesired effects can be avoided.

1
2.0 Experiment

2.1 Activity 1: Materials and Procedure

The materials used in the lab consisted of three aluminum rod samples, a rolling mill, mineral oil
(for lubricant), and a bending die for the bending process.

The rolling mill was set up with the appropriate parameters being inputted for each sample. The
rolling gap was adjusted, sample’s temperature taken, sample lubricated, and then inserted into
the mill. As the sample protruded from the other side, its final temperature was taken and then it
was observed for surface errors. This was repeated for each sample.

2.2 Activity 2: Materials and Procedure

The objective of this activity is to identify the effects of rolling on the springback. The materials
used for this was a rolled aluminum strip after the rolling experiment in part 2.1

A guide (Figure 1) with the die measurement was printed out prior to starting the experiment. A
die of diameter 62.7 mm was used and placed on the printed guide. One group member held the
die in place while another bent the rolled strip around the die along the guide one sample at a
time. The strip was held in place for about 10 seconds. One end of the strip was held in place
while the other was let go. The end that was let go was traced. The final bend angle was
measured from the traced line.

2
 Figure 1 Guide for bending rolled strips

2.3 Activity 3: Materials and Procedure

-Aryaman

3
 3.0 Results

3.1 Activity 1: Rolling

Table 1 Recorded sample data from the rolling activity

Sample Target Speed Initial Final Initial Final Actual Initial Final Temp
Reduction (rpm) Width Width Thickness Thickness Reduction Temp
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) % (°C)

1 30% 20 26.5 26.40 mm 1.66 1.34 19.27 26.5 27.4 °C

2 30% 35 27.0 26.45 mm 1.7 1.275 25.0 25.4 27.5 °C

3 15% 20 27.0 26.29 mm 1.7 1.53 10.0 25.3 °C 24.5 °C

3.1.1 Friction Analysis

Table 2 Analytically calculated vs measured forces values for sample 1

Table 3 Analytically calculated vs measured forces values for sample 2

4
 Table 4 Analytically calculated vs measured forces values for sample 3

Unfortunately, the analytically calculated forces and torques for the μ values were unreasonably
skewed for comparison to the measured values from the data. The calculated forces were much
greater than those measured by the force transducer in the rolling mill. However, the calculated
torques were much lower than the measured torques, which is not consistent with the equations
used to find the torques. The empirical formula used to calculate the torques (T = F*Lp/2) shows
that the torque should scale linearly with force, however the comparison of the measured and
calculated torques does not align with this formula. The results from the analytical calculations
were inconclusive and a possible coefficient of friction for the experiment could not be
determined.

5
3.2 Activity 2: Sheet Metal Bending

Figure 2 The shape of the strips after bending around a die of diameter 62.7mm

6
 Table 5 Measured and Theoretical data using Springback equation

Measured Theoretical

Sample Ri t alpha_i alpha_f Rf Rf

1 31.4 1.340 90 62 45.81065 32.729959

2 31.4 1.275 90 64 44.34492 32.80353

3 31.4 1.530 90 65 43.70192 32.552097

4 31.4 1.620 90 64 44.415 32.482927

(unrolled)

Figure 3 Graph comparing the radius/thickness ratio and the springback factor

Figure 2 was used to obtain the final alpha (bend angle) value. Table 5 shows the final radius
using the measured final alpha along with the theoretical data that was obtained using Sach’s
Approximation. Figure 3 shows the initial radius/thickness ratio on the x-axis and the springback
factor on the y-axis.

7
3.3 Activity 3: Anisotropy of Sheet Metals
- Aryaman

8
4.0 Discussion

4.1 Activity 1 Discussion

Surface condition and how it may have changed as the reduction was increased.
Prior to the rolling process, each sample had very similar appearances. They were smooth edged
with an even, uniform surface as depicted in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Aluminum samples prior to rolling

Wavy edges were apparent after rolling in all samples. In Figure 5, curves can be observed
throughout the length of the samples but are most obvious at the ends where the rod appears to
curve in the upwards direction. The main factors that cause curvy edges are friction, sheet
thickness, flange height, and forming speed [1]. Since all the samples had nearly identical initial
thicknesses and experienced similar forces due to friction, the probable main contributor to the
resulting wavy edges in this experiment was rolling speed and reduction percentage.

The upper rod in Figure 5, illustrates sample one, which underwent rolling at the lowest speed
out of all the samples and displayed a greater degree of wavy edges than the other sample in the
figure, sample two. From this observation, increasing the rolling speed may improve the degree
of wavy edges a workpiece experiences during rolling.

Another method for mitigating wavy edges is to reduce the rolling diameter [1], however altering
the radius was not an option for this lab experiment.

9
Reduction percentage may also have had an impact on the production of wavy edges in the
sample. Sample one, the upper rod in Figure 5 underwent a 30% reduction and displayed visible
wavy edges. Sample three however, which underwent 15% reduction, did not display a
considerable number of wavy edges. This could indicate that as percent reduction is increased,
the severity of this defect is also increased.

Figure 5 Sample one and two displaying wavy edges

Edge cracks were another defect displayed in the samples post rolling process. Several cracks
were apparent along the edges of the rod, the most noticeable cracks were visible on sample two
and are indicated in Figure 6. Edge cracks are primarily attributed from secondary tensile
stresses induced at the workpiece surfaces [2]. Typically, once the rolling process has been
complete, the edge portions are trimmed off leaving the metal shape free of edge cracks [3].

However, edge cracks may also be a result of excessive thinning of the edges in the workpiece
[3]. If the roller deforms and arcs upward near the middle of the workpiece, the edges of the
workpiece will be thinned the most, while the centre will have the least thickness reduction.
Sample one and two, which underwent 30% reduction, displayed a greater degree of cracking
than sample three which underwent 15% reduction. Figure 5 illustrates the edge cracks in sample
two which had the greatest reduction percentage.

10
 Figure 6 Sample two displaying edge cracks

Do the assumptions made in developing the model (analytical eqn.) affect the results? How?
It is unlikely that the assumptions made in developing the model affected the analytical results.

The assumption of plane strain is valid, as the length of the sample was significantly greater than
the width and thickness dimensions. This would mean only the strain occurring in the width and
height directions should be considered, as strain in the length in negligible.

The relationship between the radius of the roller and the contact angle did not indicate that Lp
could be approximated to L. Regardless, the calculated L and Lp in each sample only varied by
0.01 mm, so any error would be insignificant to the analytical calculations. The L and Lp values
can be found in Table 8 of the Appendix.

11
Effect of rolling speed on the results
Roll speed will directly affect the tension during the rolling process and the thickness of the strip.
Based on the magnitudes of the tensile stresses, the neutral point of the part might shift. Due to
this deviation the pressure distribution, torque, and power requirements of rolling are affected
[4]. Increasing the spin speed of the rollers will reduce the roll separating force and also lower
the residual stress. The roll force decreases because the roller and strip will be in contact for less
time. Roll force can be calculated by multiplying the contact area by an average contact stress,
pav, as shown in Equation 1, where L is the length of contact and be calculated as shown in
Equation 2, where R is the roll radius and 𝛥ℎ is the difference between the original and final
thicknesses of the strip. Reducing the speed increases the rolling forces and also increases the
energy in the rolling system, which has a negative influence on rolling. Increasing the speed too
much introduces the risk of the strip breaking.

F = Lwpav (1)
L = √𝑅𝛥ℎ (2)

Would these factors: roll deformation, roll bending, roll eccentricity, mill stretch,
temperature rise, lubrication condition, also play a role in the differences? If so, how?

Roll deformation could have been a significant contributor of the errors found in the rolling
experiments. The calculated theoretical forces exerted on the rollers were on the order of ten
kilonewtons even when the coefficient of friction was 0.05 for samples one and two. The third
sample had forces around 7000 N, which is still an immense force to be put on a roller with a
diameter of around 30 mm. Considering the rollers were around 15-20 cm long and the metal
strip was only around 2.5cm wide, it makes sense that there would be significant internal
moments through the roller causing it to bend along its axis.

The metal strips only changed temperature by about one degree Celsius which is unlikely to
cause any significant changes in the properties of the material like the elastic modulus or the
coefficient of friction. The minute change in temperature also means any thermal expansion or

12
contraction can be comfortably neglected. Since this experiment was not designed to impart a
curve on the metal sheets, it is unlikely that roll bending played a significant role in the results.

The lubricant used was mineral oil which is assumed to sufficiently reduce the coefficient of
friction so that the sticking condition is not met during rolling. It was also unlikely to affect any
of the material properties relevant to the rolling. However, since the coefficient of friction was
not known, the calculated force values were likely inaccurate compared to the true values.

Did the strip exit straight? Would that change the measured forces/torque?
The strip exited the rollers with a slight downward curve on it. This means the lateral stretching
was higher on the top half of the strip than on the bottom half. This was likely because the points
of contact between the metal strips and the rollers were not vertically symmetrical. There could
have been some misalignment in the two rollers. If the metal strip was fed in at an angle it is
possible that it was bent during the flattening process. Contrary to the section above, there was
some evidence of roll bending even though it was not intended. This may have skewed the
results of the lab which may have contributed to the variance between the measured and
calculated forces and torques.

Did the final thickness of your rolled sheet match the roll gap? Is it different? Why?
The final thickness of the rolled sheets were not exactly the same as the targeted roll gap. In the
first two samples, the actual reduction was about 5-10% lower than expected. This can be
attributed to elastic recovery, roll deformation, or simply due to the margin of error when setting
the machine. However, the roll gap was not altered between the first two samples, so only part of
this reduced flattening should have been due to the machine setting errors.

Since the sheet was already quite thin and the target final thickness was relatively high, there
should have been a lot of plastic deformation beyond the elastic region. Taking the first sample
for calculations, the target reduction of 30% means the final thickness should have been around
1.162 mm. The total strain using this target thickness is about 0.357 (using true strain = ln(l f/li)

13
and compression being positive). Thus, the error due to elastic recovery should have been very
small and likely negligible compared to other sources of error.

If the experiment is to be repeated, how should it be changed?

There are a few changes that could be made to the lab in order to gain a better understanding on
rolling and the sheet rolling process.

An increase in the number of samples completed would be a good improvement. Although

analyzing more samples would take more time, it was difficult to determine whether the results
were accurate with such limited data. Furthermore, it was difficult to identify any causal
relationships between the experiment parameters and the specimen outcomes due to a lack of
control variables. If a sample had been rolled poorly due to imperfections in the metal strip prior
to rolling, that would be reflected in the data, and it would be difficult to determine accuracy
with limited results.

The roll gap was not determined very methodically. There were no measurements taken when
adjusting the rollers to different heights. The machine was tuned to an approximate height using
an average of one millimeter of height per full revolution, with a margin of error of 50%. This
error alone could cause any of the results found above to be skewed, which further limited the
possibility of drawing sound conclusions based on the observations. A more methodical
approach to setting the machine to the right roll gap will greatly improve the results of this lab.

4.2 Activity 2 Discussion

In Table 5, the initial radius is obtained from the radius of the die which is 31.4mm. The
thickness was measured during the lab for each sample. The initial alpha is always going to be 90
degrees because final alpha is measured to the horizontal line shown in Figure 2. Final alpha was
obtained from Figure 2, taking the angle measurement from the horizontal to the line drawn. The
measured final radius was obtained using the bend allowance Equation 3, shown below. The
theoretical final radius was obtained using Sach’s approximation Equation 4, shown below,

14
where Y is the yield stress and E is Young’s Modulus. The yield stress for Aluminum 3003-O is
41.4 MPa and Young’s Modulus is 68.9 GPa [5].

(𝑅𝑖 + )𝛼𝑖 = (𝑅𝑓 + )𝛼𝑓 (3)

= 4( ) − 3( ) + 1 (4)

The strip that was not cold rolled had a springback factor of about 0.72 (data received from
Group 3) which is the same as the springback factor for the second sample which had a target
reduction of 30% and rolling speed of 35 rpm. The springback factor of the first sample, which
had a target reduction of 30% and rolling speed of 20 rpm, was about 0.69. This means there was
more springback on the sample that was rolled at a lower speed. The springback factor for the
third sample, which had a target reduction of 15% and rolling speed of 20rpm, was about 0.72.
This means the springback is slightly lower when the strip has a lower target reduction but same
speed.

A greater thickness results in the bend radius/thickness ratio to be lower. Complete bendability
of a material is achieved when the bend radius/thickness is approaching zero. Cold rolling
aluminum will decrease the thickness which in turn lowers the R/t ratio. As shown in Figure 3,
the cold rolling decreased springback (increased springback factor), when the speed of the rollers
was set to 20rpm and the target reduction was set to 15% which only reduced the strip by about
10% as shown in Table 1. Cold rolling increased springback (decreased springback factor) when
the speed was set to 20 rpm and the target reduction was set to 30 which only reduced by about
20% as shown in table x. The cold rolling had no effect on springback when the speed of the
roller was set to 35 rpm and the target reduction was set to 30%.

15
 Table 6 Calculated yield stress of each sample

The calculated yield stress for the three samples were as shown in the above Table 6. The
reported yield stress of Al3003 is 41.4 MPa according to MatWeb [5]. There is quite a bit of
inconsistency between the two. This may be due to errors made in measurements during the lab
procedure. The yield stress was calculated using Equation 4, where Y is the yield stress. A slight
change in the final radius will have an effect on the calculated yield stress which is where the
error most likely comes from. There may also be errors when measuring the final thickness of
the strip, which further causes a discrepancy in the yield stress calculation.

Table 7 Yield stresses of working hardening designations

The yield stresses of the work hardening designations in Table 7 does not match up with the
yield stresses calculated (shown in Table 7). The calculated yield stresses are 314.67 MPa,
277.34 MPa, and 320.69 MPa. The yield stresses for H12, H14, H16, and H18 are 124 MPa,
144.79 MPa, 172 MPa, and 186 MPa respectively [5]. These values are off by quite a bit because
of the final radius. To calculate the yield stress, Equation 4 was used, where the final radius was

16
calculated using the final bend angle. There is a high probability that the bend angle was
measured incorrectly because of how the lines were traced (shown in Figure 2). This will cause
the calculations for the yield stress to be quite different from what was expected.

4.3 Activity 3 Discussion

-Aryaman

17
5.0 Conclusion
The results of the lab showed that a larger reduction in thickness caused more surface defects
such as edge cracks and wavy edges, which are common defects that occur when rolling sheet
metal. It was also found that decreasing the thickness proportionally affected the springback of
the samples, which suggests that the metal has a larger elastic recovery region. This may be
beneficial for applications with cyclic loading. There were many unexpected errors that could not
be explained, such as not meeting the target reduction and calculated forces being much greater
than the measured forces.

It was also found that cold rolling has an effect on the springback when the target reduction is
15% instead of 30%. The spring back is not affected by cold rolling when the target reduction is
30% and at a higher speed of 35 rpm. The calculated yield stresses were not accurate compared
to the 41.4 MPa found on MatWeb [5].This may be because of the inaccuracy of measuring final
alpha from the bending activity. It is quite possible that the lines were traced incorrectly after
doing the bending with the die.

18
References
[1] C. Liang, S. Li, J. Liang, and J. Li, “Method for controlling edge wave defects of parts
during roll forming of high-strength steel,” Metals, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 53, 2021.

[2] B. A. Technologies, “Common rolling defects and how to combat them,” Metal Fabrication
Resources by Blackstone Advanced Technologies. [Online]. Available:
https://blog.blackadvtech.com/common-rolling-defects-and-how-to-combat-
them#:~:text=During%20both%20hot%20and%20cold,uneven%20rolling%2C%20or%20e
xcess%20quenching. [Accessed: 05-Jul-2022].

[3] V. Emery, “US3477271A - method for reducing edge cracking during rolling of metal
shapes,” Google Patents, 11-Nov-1969. [Online]. Available:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US3477271A/en. [Accessed: 05-Jul-2022].

[4] S. Kalpakjian, S. R. Schmid, and J. Ghose, Manufacturing Processes for engineering

materials. India: Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd, 2018.

[5] Matweb.com. 2022. MatWeb - The Online Materials Information Resource. [online]
Available at:
<https://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=fd4a40f87d3f4912925e5e6ea
b1fbc40&ckck=1> [Accessed 4 July 2022].

19
Appendix
Table 8 Analytical calculations and additional values

20