STEEL TECH 53

VOL. 7 NO. 2 JANUARY, 2013

Abstract
JSW Steel Ltd produces different finished product
namely hot rolled strip, cold rolled strip, and long
products. The objective of this work was to produce
regression based models to capture and understand
the relationship between the variables and mechanical
properties of steel in different product forms. There
are many factors that affect the mechanical properties
in the process. The models were used to interpret
the trends by altering one variable and keeping the
others constant. Such studies are often not possible
to conduct experimentally. In addition, the predictions
of the regression models were validated with the
metallographic studies and the plant data. Specific
analysis has been carried out for the similar
composition (IS: 11513 D) steel being processed
through the hot strip mill (HSM), cold rolling mill
(CRM) and wire rod mill (WRM). Impact of process
parameters on the mechanical properties has been
analysed using these models and validated with
microstructure and plant data.
Results to date indicate that the accuracy of the
model is good and is suitable for the evaluation of
new steel grades and the development of optimised
thermo-mechanical processing routes.
Keywords: MLR (Multi Linear Regression), HSM (Hot
Strip Mill), CRM (Cold Rolling Mill) and WRM (Wire Rod
Mill).
INTRODUCTION
JSW is an integrated steel plant that has a Hot Strip Mill
(HSM), Cold Rolling Mill (CRM) and Long Product Mill
(LPM) with a capacity of 10 million tonnes per annum. It
can roll a wide range of steels comprising low carbon,
tube, structural, API line pipe, micro alloyed, low Al, low
Si and several medium carbon steels in three process
routes. Its products are hot rolled coils, cold rolled coils
and long products, which are rolled in the respective
mills. A data-based approach proves good, especially
for industrial systems because of their non-complexity.
Often not even process experts are aware of all the
relationships of their systems and are able to understand
every behavior. This paper constitutes mechanical
properties modelling for three different process routes.
Regression has been carried out for all three process
route variables to predict the mechanical properties of
these products. The main feature of the regression is
the establishment of linear relationships between data
whi ch makes thi s techni que very attracti ve for
understanding the direct impact of process variables. In
the presented application area, one big challenge is the
fact that such processes typically are rich in data but
poor in terms of information, since measurements are
made in a few operating points and an arbitrary excitation
is not possible owing to cost concerns. Identifying the
working window for quality improvement can be made
easy with the help of such models.
MODEL FORMULATION
The model has been formulated by using several
explanatory data like chemistry, temperature and process
variables to predict the response variable like mechanical
property. The goal of multiple linear regressions (MLR)
is to model the relationship between the explanatory and
response variables. The model for MLR, given
observations, is:
y
i
= B
0
+ B
1
x
i1
+ B
2
x
i2
+ ... + B
p
x
ip
+ E
i
Where i = 1, 2, ..., n
The relationship between y
i
and x
i
is then estimated by
carrying out a simple linear regression analysis. Least
squares criterion has been used to estimate the equations,
so that it is possible to minimise the sum of squares of
the differences between the actual and predicted values
for each observation in the sample, that is, minimise
6 E
i
. Although there are other ways of estimating the
parameters in the regression model, the least squares
criterion has several desirable statistical properties, most
notable of which is that the estimates are maximum
likelihood if the residuals E
i
are normally distributed. Fig.1.
shows the schematic model formulation.
Prediction of Mechanical Property of Low Carbon
Steel Processed in Different Rolling Routes through
Regression
Pradeep Agarwal, R. Madhusudhan, L. Naidu, Abhay Shrivastava, Vinoo D. S. and S. Manjini
JSW Steel Ltd, Vijayanagar Works, INDIA
VOL. 7 NO. 2 JANUARY, 2013
STEEL TECH 54
Fig. 1: Schematic model formulation
The data for the analysis work was collected from the
respective rolling mills. Number of test data for each
mill is mentioned in Table 1. Chemical and dimensional
range of input variables are given in Table 2.
Inputs Outputs
(explanatory variables) (response) variables)
Chemistry Model calculations
Temperatures and
Process variables Empirical relations
Dimensions
Type of mill Yield Strength
Ultimate Tensile
Strength
Elongation
Table 1: Number of test data with each production
unit
Type of production unit Number of test
data used for
analysis
Hot Strip Mill (HSM) 18300
Cold Rolling Mill (CRM) 18800
Wire Rod Mill (WRM) 7100
EMPIRICAL RELATION DEVELOPMENT
The empirical relations were developed by running the
model for all the mills products to predict mechanical
properties which are given below. The data include the
following variables (the symbols of the variables are
shown in brackets).
Tensile strength (MPa) [TS], yield strength (MPa) [YS],
% Elongation [%EL] and % Reduction in area [%RA]
Element concentrations from actual ladle analysis
(weight %) [C], [Mn], [Si], [Nb], [V], [N], [Ti], [Cr],
[Cu], [Ni], [P], [S], [B], [Al]
Table 2: Range of data used with each production unit
Chemistry HSM CRM WRM
(wt %) Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
C 0.001 0.64 0.001 0.1 0.06 0.8
Mn 0.05 1.73 0.05 1 0.3 0.9
Si 0.002 0.9 0.003 0.9 0.01 0.35
P 0.002 0.1 0.002 0.025 0.004 0.03
S 0.002 0.04 0.003 0.025 0.001 0.03
Al 0.002 0.1 0.025 0.065 0.002 0.06
N 0 0.009 0 0.006 0 0.006
Ti 0 0.1 0 0.04
B 0 0.005 0 0.005
Cr 0 1.2
Cu 0 0.4
Nb 0 0.09
Ni 0 0.45
V 0 0.16
Dimension 1.6 26 0.3 3.2 5.5 22
(mm)
STEEL TECH 55
VOL. 7 NO. 2 JANUARY, 2013
Finishing temperature [FT], Coiling temperature [CT]
for hot rolled strip
Shape parameters [thickness], [width] of strip,
[diameter] of wire-rod and gauge length [GL] of tensile
sample.
Processing parameters for CRM i.e. total reduction
in cold compact mill [% reduction] and skin pass mill
elongation [%SPM elongation].
Annealing parameters for CRM i.e. outer temperature
of coil in batch annealing furnace [case temperature],
inner ring temperature of coil [core temperature], total
heating time and holding time in furnace [heating hood
time]
It may be noted that all the temperatures are in [C],
dimensions are in [mm] and time is in [sec].
DEVELOPMENT OF EMPIRICAL RELATIONS FOR
HSM MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
Hot strip mill processing involves a series of thickness
reduction step at high temperature for input slab to
make strip. First the slab is heated in reheating furnace
(1190 1250 C) to make it thermally homogenised
and dissolve most of the carbo-nitrate precipitates.
Then the rough rolling is carried in reversing rougher
mi l l that breaks cast mi crostructure and form
recrystallised grains of austenite. The high temperature
of roughing process (1040 1200 C) allows higher
strai n i n passes wi thout maki ng materi al work
harden
[1].
The roughing mill exit temperature is typically
set to 1000-1120C depending on requirement of finishing
temperature or microstructural requirement to improve
the properties.
The finish rolling is carried out in 6 stand four high
finishing mill. The typical finish rolling temperature is
set close to Ar3 temperature (820-910C) and coiling
temperature is set as per the end microstructural
requirement (540-700C). Final mechanical properties
evolve mainly owing to phase transformation behavior,
grain size of ferrite and precipitation strengthening.
The empirical relation developed for UTS, YS and % EL
for hot rolling mill (HSM) is shown below:
R
2
(UTS)
= 0.95
UTS = 449 + 620(C) + 75(Mn) + 490(P) 16(S) + 92(Si)
+ 2.1(Al) + 856(N) 3109(B) + 43(Cr) + 249(Cu)
+2866(Nb) 68(Ni) -142(Ti) + 211(V) - 0.09(FT) - 0.1(CT)
-2.3(thicknes)
R
2
(YS)
= 0.87
YS = 460 + 364(C) + 64(Mn) + 327(P) 7.5(S) + 48(Si)
+ 22(Al) + 324(N) 4305(B) + 35(Cr) + 475(Cu) +
3862(Nb) - 408(Ni) 236(Ti) + 264(V) 0.14(FT)
0.12(CT) 4.8(thickness)
R
2
(EL)
= 0.81
EL = 45.4 49(C) - 3(Mn) - 33(P) - 54(S) - 2(Si) - 1.7(Al)
+ 220(N) - 360(B) - 3(Cr) -29(Cu) - 219(Nb) + 23(Ni) +
33(Ti) + 96(V) + 0.0026(FT) + 0.0143 (CT) + 0.24
(thickness) 0.223(GL)
DEVELOPMENT OF EMPIRICAL RELATIONS FOR
CRM MECHANICAL PROPERTIES
The hot rolled strip is used as a input material for cold
rolling. First the surface scale is removed through
continuous pickling line operation. The cold thickness
reduction take place in 6-Hi twin stand reversible compact
cold rolling mill. The total reduction typically varies
between 70-90% of input thickness. The material become
work harden owing to cold rolling. Batch annealing
treatment (below Ar1 temperature) is given to get the
required microstructure and properties. Finally skin pass
rolling is performed as per customer requirement. The
mechanical properties are mainly dependent on
mi crostructural changes duri ng anneal i ng and
precipitation strengthening.
The empirical relation developed for UTS, YS and % EL
for cold rolling mill (CRM) is shown below:
R
2
(UTS)
= 0.84
UTS = 152 + 121(C) + 188(Mn) + 667(P) 245(S) +
2.75(Si) - 167(Al) + 2401(N) 1.77(thickness)
0.003(width) + 0.16(% reduction) -0.14(% SPM
elongation) -0.001 (case temperature) + 0.13(core
temperature) -0.38(total heating time) 2.1(heating hood
time)
R
2
(YS)
= 0.79
YS = 122 + 11(C) + 228(Mn) + 320(P) 215(S) - 6.75(Si)
- 216(Al) + 4451(N) - 1.9(thickness) 0.003(width) -
0.37(% reduction) -0.17(% SPM elongation) -0.001 (case
temperature) + 0.02(core temperature) -0.05(total heating
time) 2.8(heating hood time)
R
2
(EL)
= 0.67
EL = 49.7 - 4(C) - 21(Mn) -39(P) + 15(S) + 0.25(Si) +
9.8(Al) - 272(N) + 0.22(thickness) + 0.001(width) - 0.01(%
reduction) + 0.01(% SPM elongation) -0.01 (case
temperature) + 0.01(core temperature) + 0.08(total
heating time) + 0.31(heating hood time)
DEVELOPMENT OF EMPIRICAL RELATIONS FOR
LPM MECHANICAL PROPERTIES:
Continuously cast billets (165*165 mm
2
) are the input
material for making wires and rods. The cross section
VOL. 7 NO. 2 JANUARY, 2013
STEEL TECH 56
WRM
ASTM Grain size no. = 9.25, SD = 0.009
UTS = 379MPa, %RA = 73, HRB = 49
Product Diameter = 5.5mm
Finishing Temperature = 910C
Coiling Temperature = 660C
of square billet is reduced through series of horizontal
and vertical reductions in 30 stands mill. First the billet
is heated (1000-1230C) in furnace to make it thermally
homogenise. The billet then passes through breakdown
mill, roughing mill, finishing mill, no twist mill and
reducing/sizing mill to attain the final shape. The end
rolling temperature is typically set above Ar3 temperature
(850- 930C) to complete rolling in austenitic region.
Different mode of cooling can be applied to get the
desired microstructure. Finally the product is coiled in
vertical pallet reform station.
The empirical relation developed for UTS, YS and % EL
for long product mill (LPM) is shown below:
R
2
(UTS)
= 0.83
UTS = 301+ 512(C) + 91(Mn) + 32(Si) + 169(P) + 62(S)
88(Al) + 696(N) 0.6(diameter)
R
2
(%RA)
= 0.72
%RA = 83 58(C) 4.4(Mn) + 15.7(Si) 14(P) - 18(S) +
13(Al) 42(N) - 0.7(diameter)
The coefficient of reliability (R
2
) was fairly good for MLR.
Micro-alloying, finishing temperature and coiling
temperature was found to be mainly affecting the
mechanical properties for hot rolled products. Annealing
parameters were mainly affecting the properties of cold
rolled products. Fairly good relations could be achieved
with just chemistry and shape correlation for the
mechanical properties in wire rod products. It may be
owing to less number of total grades with similar process
variability in wire rod category. The detail effect of each
element and process variable has already been published
repeatedly
[1-4]
hence not included in this paper.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THREE MILLS
PRODUCTS
One single composition (IS: 11513 D) has been selected
from the products of three mills namely HSM, CRM and
WRM as shown in Table 3. Full process analysis,
microstructure evolution and mechanical properties had
been recorded and analysed. The results are given in
Table 3.
The predicted mechanical properties in Table 4 are fairly
close to the tested mechanical properties in Fig. 2. The
variation in mechanical properties in different processes
is directly related to how the microstructure evolved
during thermo-mechanical processing along with phase
transformation. Details are given in Table 4.
Table 3: Chemical composition (IS: 11513 D)
Element C Mn Si (max) P (max) S (max) Al (max) N (max)
Wt % 0.05-0.06 0.3-0.4 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.005
Fig. 2: Comparison of microstructure and mechanical
properties of similar steel composition being process
through different product line
HSM
ASTM Grain size no. = 9.13, SD = 0.009
UTS = 365 MPa, YS = 294 MPa, %EL = 39
Thickness = 3.2mm
Finishing Temperature = 847C
Coiling Temperature = 598 C
CRM
ASTM Grain size no. = 7.87, SD = 0.16
UTS = 320MPa, YS = 190 MPa, %El = 42.6
Thickness = 1.2mm
Annealing Temperature = 700C, 590C at core
Heating Time = 17.4 Hr, Holding Time = 2 Hr
Water Cooling start temperature = 380C
STEEL TECH 57
VOL. 7 NO. 2 JANUARY, 2013
Table 4: Predicted mechanical properties based on
process parameters
Predicted HSM CRM WRM
properties
UTS (Mpa) 379 303 387
YS (Mpa) 305 179
% Elongation 35 42.9
% RA 73
In Fig. 2(a), the microstructure had evolved after the
processing in HSM. It mainly contains the polygonal
ferrite with discreet distribution of cementite particles at
the grain boundaries
[1]
. After the finish rolling at 847C,
the complete structure was austenite with elongated
grains and stored deformation
[2]
. This austenite rapidly
recrystallised in to fine equiaxed structure
[2]
. Phase
transformation take place in runout table where the
average cooling rate was found to be 30C/sec. Fine
equiaxed austenite yielded in to fine equiaxed ferrite after
phase transformation. This phase transformation
completes before coiling at 598C. After coiling some
amount of grain growth and cementite coarsening is
expected for this low carbon steel
[3]
.
In Fig. 2(b), the microstructure had evolved after
processing in CRM. It mainly contains coarse ferrite with
aspect ratio 2.4 and fine distribution of cementite within
it. The pancake structure is owing to cold working; only
sub-grains are eliminated, complete recrystallisation did
not take place
[4]
. After the cold reduction the structure
was full hard owing to strain hardening. This material
was then annealed in batch annealing furnaces, for the
targeted core temperature of 590C, while the gas
temperature was maintained at 700C. It took 17.4 Hr
for heating the coil to this temperature. Heating hood
was placed in the furnace for 2 Hr; finally it was air cooled
to 380C and then water cooled to room temperature.
Annealing had removed most of the strain hardening and
final structure is soft ferrite.
In Fig. 2(c), the microstructure had evolved after
processing in WRM. It mainly contains polygonal ferrite
and some cementite. After the finish rolling at 910C,
material was cooled with force air. The average cooling
rate was found to be 25C/sec i n the phase
transformation temperature range. Similar to HSM line,
recrystallised austenite yielded in fine polygonal ferrite.
Difference in mechanical properties comes owing to the
difference in cooling rate after coiling. The cooling rate
was found to be much higher for WRM products than in
the HSM coils.
CONCLUSION
Empirical relations through MLR have been developed
with fairly good accuracy. It can be directly used to
know the mechanical properties in advance.
Comparison on microstructure between the products
of three mills reveals the difference in thermo
mechani cal processi ng of these l i nes. Fi nal
mechanical properties have been understood in terms
of microstructure evolution during and after phase
transformation.
The potential application of the model can be identified
as,
Prediction of mechanical properties in advance.
Optimisation of rolling temperatures for improved
microstructure.
New product development and improvement in
processing parameters of existing grades.
This model can be further useful for the beginners to
understand the effect of chemistry and rolling on the
final microstructure and properties.
REFERENCES
1. R.W.K. Honeycombe, Steels: Microstructure and
Properties, Edward Arnold, London, 1981.
2. Yu-Tuo Zhang, Dian-Zhong Li Modelling of austenite
decomposition in plain carbon steels during hot rolling
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 171
(2006), pp. 175179
3. Pradeep Agarwal, Manohar Namani, Madhusudana
R, and Madhu Ranjan, Optimisation of Rolling
Parameters for Improved Grain Structure in Drawing
Grade Steel Steel Tech. Vol. 4, No. 2, Jan 2010, pp.
33-37
4. Robert W. Cahn and Peter Haasen; Physical
Metallurgy Volume 1; 1996 (Fourth revised edition)