Alec Sarché Materials of Engineering MET2200 Instructor: Stan Trout 5/1/25
Lab Report: Cold Rolling
Purpose of Lab:
In this lab, we set out to cold-roll three different metals of identical initial dimensions
and observe how their dimensions and hardness values changed after cold-rolling through a
motorized roller. We performed our observations on 6061 aluminum, C360 brass, and 1018
steel.
Description of Experiment:
This lab consisted of three stages, each with two metrology steps: in the first stage, we
measured the hardness of our three samples with the Rockwell hardness tester, then took their
physical dimensions with a micrometer, a caliper, and a height gage.
When we had all our control data, lab coordinator Dave ran each sample through the
cold-roller, making sure to record the amount he brought the two rolling dies together. After
each pass through the machine, Dave looked at the sample to make sure it wasn’t showing
signs of failure (cracking or shearing). We considered each sample “fully rolled” when they
couldn’t take another pass without failing.
Having recorded the number of passes through the roller for each sample, Dave passed
new samples through the roller at half their “full” amount. Since it took 13 half-turns to “fully”
roll the aluminum bar, the half-rolled sample was passed through the machine until the rolling
dies had been closed by 6.5 half-turns. Brass took 9 half-turns to fully roll, 4.5 to half-roll, and
steel took 12 half-turns to fully roll and 6 to half-roll. We began to take data on each sample.
Data:
Now, with half- and fully-rolled samples of each material, we recorded hardness and
dimensional data for each sample. Because the bars took on very irregular shapes after rolling,
we took their thickness with the micrometer, then the “distance between shoulders” with a
caliper. This dimension reflected the width of the flat element in contact with the rollers. The
“shoulders” are the semicircles sandwiching a rectangle whose height is the thickness of the bar
and whose width is the distance between shoulders. Below, see a diagram of how we
approached taking these estimated dimensions (fig. 1).
Our data set after completion thus consisted of: control samples’ hardnesses and
dimensions; half-rolled samples’ hardnesses and dimensions; and fully-rolled samples’
hardnesses and dimensions. I have included those data as tables below (fig. 2, 3, 4). We took
the volumes of each part as well; even though they were irregular lengthwise, we measured
their lengths by covering them with masking tape, then flattening out the tape on a work
surface and taking a linear measurement.
Fig. 1 - cross sectional areas of each bar before rolling and after.
Fig. 2 - control samples' hardnesses and dimensions.
Fig. 3 - half-rolled samples' hardnesses and dimensions.
Fig. 4 - fully-rolled samples' hardnesses and dimensions.
Next, I generated bar charts to compare the samples’ cross-sectional areas and
their hardnesses after varying amounts of cold work (fig. 5 and 6).
Fig. 5 - hardness values after varied amounts of cold work.
Fig. 6 - percent cold-work for each sample.
Discussion:
It was clear from observing the samples after rolling, and from listening to the motor
of the roller, that each material cold-worked differently. The aluminum “squished” down
the most – and its ΔCW value reflects that. Between half-roll and full-roll, the aluminum
took another 15.2% cold work. Steel and brass both only cold-worked between half and full
rolls about 8.5% each.
Fig. 6 - unsquished, half-squished, and fully squished samples.
Our results were about exactly what we expected: as each part was cold-rolled, it
became work-hardened. By squishing the parts down, we created increasingly greater
numbers of dislocations in the work, shrinking down the grain sizes in each part and thus
yielding higher values from the Rockwell hardness tester. The aluminum was the most
amenable to work-hardening: it increased from around 40 RB to over 60 RB. The brass and
the steel both grew harder by about 10 RB, respectively from 72 to 83 RB and from 91 RB to
about 22.6 RC. If we were able to take a close up look at the cross section of each part, we
might see their grains become smaller and more uniform as they are wrought.
Fig. 7 - changing grain structure in cold-worked material.
These results bear out our expectations as well: the more we can cold-work a
material, the more we should expect it to work-harden. Since the aluminum was the most
ductile, it was able to withstand the most cold work, and thus grow by a wider margin of
hardness than either of the two more brittle materials.
If we were to anneal any of our parts, even though they would maintain their new
cold-wrought forms, their hardness values would likely return to those we observed in our
control samples.
It’s important to note that our dimensional measurements are estimates at best. We could
not take exact volumes of each part, nor could we carefully or rigorously measure their
cross-sectional areas; but by being consistent with our methods for each measurement,
we at least know that our values agree with each other.
Conclusions:
By performing this lab, we are able to conclude that yes, cold-working materials does
indeed increase their hardness by creating dislocations. We can also conclude that there
is a relationship between a metal’s ductility and its ability to be cold-wrought without
failing. Higher cold-work percents definitely correlate to higher hardness values. The
metallurgist using cold work to strain-harden material must be careful in doing so,
however, and keep a close eye on the work to make sure the part is not approaching shear
or fracture failure.
Sources Cited:
Figure 7: Ikumapayi, Omolayo M., et al. "Grain Structure during Deformation of Metal in
Rolling Process." Rolling Operation in Metal Forming: Process and Principles – A Brief
Study, June 2020, [Link]
deformation-of-metal-in-rolling-process_fig7_339597007.