Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Process Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jprocont

Adaptive task-space metal strip-flatness control in cold multi-roll mill stands夽

G. Pin a , V. Francesconi a , F.A. Cuzzola a , T. Parisini b,c,∗
a
Danieli Automation S.p.A., Buttrio (UD), Italy.
b
Imperial College London, UK
c
University of Trieste, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The automatic flatness control system applied to cold multi-roll mills for the production of metal strips
Received 23 February 2012 has been subject of research efforts in many directions since the last 30 years. An innovative multivariable
Received in revised form 15 June 2012 control approach for this application context is presented by means of which potential stability prob-
Accepted 14 August 2012
lems of controllers based on least mean squares are addressed. The proposed methodology decomposes
Available online 19 September 2012
the array of strip-elongation measurements produced by a conventional shape-meter into orthogonal
components corresponding to the main actuator directions in order to reduce the dimensionality of the
Keywords:
problem. Then, the control actions are computed by solving a prioritized constrained quadratic optimiza-
Industrial control
Cold rolling mills
tion problem. In this regard, the control problem is reformulated within a task-space control formalism
Task-space optimization – originally conceived in the robotics context – for which very efficient solution procedures do exist.
Adaptive control Furthermore, in order to account for the model uncertainties that typically affects this kind of systems,
the model of the process is adapted on-line by a numerically robust technique. The adaptive task-space
flatness control scheme dealt with in the paper has been already commissioned in several installations
having different actuator configurations and the experimental results shows its effectiveness and its easy
configurability.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and problem description
Flat cold rolling mills aim at reducing the thickness of metal
sheets though consecutive rolling passes imposing a compression
force in the transversal direction with respect to the material flow
(see, for instance [1]). The cold rolling process belongs to the more
general category of sheet and film processing (see the survey [2] and
the references cited therein) and it presents quite different aspects
with respect to hot rolling, not only in terms of the mechanical and
sensors solutions and of the characteristics of the treated material,
but also in the controller structures (see [1,3]). Indeed, as far as
automatic control of cold rolling processes, the literature is rather
large (the interested reader is referred to the recent monograph [4]
and references therein).
In this paper, an innovative approach to the Automatic Flatness
Control (AFC) task in the context of cold rolling mills is addressed
(see a preliminary version in [5]). This control problem has been
introduced in the metal rolling industry about 30 years ago (see, e.g.
夽 This work has been supported by Danieli Automation S.p.A., Buttrio (UD), Italy.
∗ Corresponding author at: Imperial College London, UK.
E-mail addresses: g.pin@dca.it (G. Pin), v.francesconi@dca.it (V. Francesconi),
f.cuzzola@dca.it (F.A. Cuzzola), t.parisini@gmail.com (T. Parisini).
[6,7]) and, since the very beginning, it has been subject to research
efforts in several different directions (see, e.g. [8–10]). The main
objectives of these research activities are: (i) effective exploitation
of the potential capabilities of the innovative mechanical devices
that become available; (ii) reduction of strip cobbles probability due
to unexpected events; (iii) reduction of the automation commis-
sioning efforts and, last but not least, (iv) possibility of production
of innovative materials having ultra-thin gauges and high-strength
characteristics.
Flatness is a descriptive attribute characterizing the extent of
the metal strip’s geometric deviation from a reference plane. This
property must be subject to an accurate feedback-based control in
order to guarantee the machinability of the metal sheets in the final
transformation processes present in various industry sectors like,
for example food, automotive, and transportation. The deviation
from perfect flatness is the direct result of the strip relaxation after
hot or cold rolling, due to the internal stress pattern caused by the
non-uniform transversal compressive action of the rolls and the
uneven geometrical properties of the entry material. Indeed, it is
worth noting that, in some specific scenarios, the perfect flatness is
even not desired, but a given flatness target is imposed depending
on requirements of final material transformation. The transverse
distribution of differential strain/elongation-induced stress with
respect to the material’s average applied stress is commonly

0959-1524/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2012.08.008
 G. Pin et al. / Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119
referenced to as shape. In the paper, whenever there is no risk
of ambiguity, the terms “shape” and “flatness” will be used in an
interchangeable manner.
AFC is one of the most advanced control technologies in the con-
text of modern metal cold rolling mills. The main challenge of this
control problem is related to the strong interactions among the var-
ious actuators, thus resulting in a truly multivariable one (see, for
instance [11,6,12–15] and the references cited therein). The specific
instance of AFC problems dealt with in the paper entails to take into
account the following important aspects:
– the actuators can reach a saturation limit. When a saturation
limit is reached, the control scheme should automatically exploit
alternative flatness actuators.
– Each actuator is characterized by a given dynamic behavior. As a
consequence, the variation of an actuator value in a given cycle-
time may be subject to additional constraints.
– In a tandem mill installation, we assume that the conventional
approach is applied. Specifically, only the downstrean stand is
used in closed-loop for AFC because this stand corresponds to the
one having the lowest transport delay to the measurement device
(the installation position of the flatness sensor is conventionally
some meters after the last stand) and has the most predictable
effect on the final shape. In [10], the authors considered the case
of using several stands in a tandem mill configuration for con-
trolling the final shape.
The stringent performance requirements typically imposed to
AFC systems, lead to the need of devising accurate dynamic models
of the actuators of the rolling stands and of their effects on the strip
shape. Concerning the aforementioned actuators, models account
for the roll-stack deflection and for the material deformation in
the roll-bite (see, e.g. [11,16–18]) and such models are typically
obtained exploiting analytic beam deflection or finite-element
computations. However, in general, the computational complexity
of these models is not suitable for a real-time implementation com-
patible with the AFC cycle-time. Owing to this reason, the dynamic
models are generally implemented in the Level 2 automation for
initial setup optimization that is applied before the start of the
rolling process.
Low-complexity physical flatness models are difficult to devise
for feedback-based real-time optimization purposes. Therefore,
several methods have been proposed in the literature in order to
provide the controller with a “predictive effect” so as to suitably
limit the corresponding computational load. As it is customary for
controlling a nonlinear multi-variable process, the most immedi-
ate approach consists in approximating the relation between the
flatness actuators’s adjustments and the shape by a linear rela-
tion in correspondence of a prescribed working condition. In this
connection, it is quite common to parametrize the flatness profile,
that is, the transverse distribution of residue stress on the strip,
in a finite (and usually small) number of components. To this end,
discrete Legendre (Chebychev) or Gram basis have been shown to
perform quite well in describing shape profiles with a few com-
ponents as they can efficiently reproduce the effects of the main
flatness actuators (see [12,15]) on the measurement.
It is worth pointing out that the AFC task (and consequently
the methodology presented in this paper) needs to properly treat a
shape measurement subject to cross-wise spacial sampling. These
particular measurements are provided by devices of stresso-meter
type, that is, shape-meters made of a segmented roll with one or
more load cells for each segment. As the cost of this type of devices
is strongly dependent on the number of installed cells, it is quite
common to have larger segments in its central part that should
be weighted more during control execution proportionally to their
width. Another difficulty that raises by managing such type of
109
measurements is represented by the fact that the segments under
the strip edges are only partially covered by the strip. Finally, the
width of the strip may vary during the strip processing and it can
also move from the mill center-line.
The proposed AFC technique takes advantage of on-line modi-
fication of the weights applied to the various segments, this being
one of its most innovative features. Specifically, the main elements
of the AFC architecture are:
• on-line computed weighted discrete transformation represent-
ing the strip profile in basic orthogonal components;
• on-line estimated sensitivity matrix from the actuators to the
shape profile components;
• multivariable control scheme based on prioritized task-space
optimization and using on line the estimated sensitivity and the
flatness profile error projected on the discrete Legendre space.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, the AFC
problem is described enhancing some characteristics of the typi-
cal automation system under concern. Subsequently, Sections 3–5
describe the above-mentioned basic elements of the proposed
AFC scheme. Finally, in Section 6, some comparative simulation
results are reported to show the effectiveness of the AFC technique,
whereas, in Section 7, some results on a real industrial case-study
are given.
2. Automatic flatness control: basic description and
architecture of the automation system
The flatness control system is typically implemented in several
hierarchically-organized automation layers, as shown in Fig. 1. In
the following, for the readers’ convenience, the various elements of
this architecture are described, as well as the basic aspects of the
flatness control problem.
The so-called “Level 1 (L1) automation system is in charge of
performing the “fast” control functions and is implemented on
a real-time hardware platform directly connected with the elec-
trically or hydraulically commanded actuators and the sensors
(“Level 0 – L0).
The “Level 2 (L2) automation system performs plant setup opti-
mization tasks. In particular, on the basis of a physical model of
the rolling stand deflection and of the material plastic deformation,
L2 computes the initial flatness actuator values to start processing
each new coil and optimizes the L1 control gains. The L1 control
functions subsume, in turn, a hierarchical organization. Indeed, the
reference signals for the flatness actuators generated by the AFC
on the basis of the shape measurement are implemented by corre-
sponding inner control loops.
In the sequel, we assume, for the sake of simplicity, the ideal situ-
ation in which the inner loops achieve zero steady-state error with a
faster dynamics with respect to the AFC cycle time. This multi-loop
structure of the L1 system that separates the real-time optimization
tasks, like the AFC, from the implementation of actuator inner loops
is also motivated by the simultaneous presence of different time-
requirements. Specifically, the inner loops must satisfy stringent
dynamic requirements (including some demanding tasks needing
a cycle time of 0.5–1 ms) and need safety monitoring procedures.
Instead, the dynamic optimization performances asked to the AFC
(whose cycle time is in general selectable in the range 50–200 ms)
are usually characterized by a significantly slower dynamics.
Each flatness actuator corresponds to a basic control loop aiming
at implementing the flatness actuator references generated by the
AFC optimization algorithm. These basic loops are:
110 G. Pin et al. / Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119
Fig. 1. Hierarchical structure of the mill stand’s control functions.
• Tilting (TLT): it is used to exert a differential force on the two sides
of the upper “BackUp” Roll (BUR). The BURs are the topmost and
bottommost rolls of the roll stack with the biggest diameters and
constituted of an alloy quite resistant to elastic deformation.
• Work roll bending (WRB): this loop allows to control the net force
exerted by the WRB hydraulic actuators to deflect the “Work”
Rolls (WR), i.e. the rolls that are in direct contact with the material.
• Intermediate roll bending (IRB): this loop allows to control the
net force exerted by the IRB hydraulic actuators to deflect the
“Intermediate” Rolls (IR) installed between the WRs and the BURs.
• Intermediate roll shifting (IRS): this loop is in charge of shifting
the IRs with respect to the mill center-line.
• Intermediate roll crossing (IRC): this loop is in charge of rotating
the IRs with respect to the roll-stack.
• Selective cooling (SRC): this loop is in charge of controlling the
percentage of coolant that the spray nozzles eject in order to cool
specific portions of the WRs and in this way to keep under control
the shape of the WRs generated by their thermal expansion.
Other flatness actuators can be arranged on a 6-HI stand when
required: Work roll shifting (similar to the IRS but applied to
the WRs) and differential work/intermediate roll bending (i.e. the
possibility to implement a different reference value for bending
cylinders acting on the drive side and the non-drive side of the
stand). There are several other types of cold rolling stands (e.g. 4HI
stand, Z-HI and 20-HI stands) that present different characteristics
also in terms of flatness actuator types and quality: in particular the
20-HI case could include special hydraulically commanded actua-
tors called “wedges” that could dynamically deform under load the
backup rolls in order to give them a special crowned shape. The
interested reader is referred to [19] for an overview on the structure
of cold rolling stands.
In order to shed some light on the effects of the main flatness
actuators of a 6-HI stand on the shape of the strip, in the left-hand-
side of Fig. 2, we show in a pictorial way the effects of an excessive
application of a flatness-actuator (only the top-half roll-stack is
depicted), while, in the right-hand-side, the corresponding most
common flatness defects are depicted. More specifically, in Fig. 2(a),
we show that an increment on the rolling force (blue), applied by
hydraulic cylinders on the bearings of the BURs, may deflect the
stand compressing more the edges than the center of the strip. As
a result, the edges of the strip are more elongated and waves may
be observed as post-rolling effect. Lateral IRS (green) can be used
to mitigate the “wavy edge” defects. In Fig. 2(b), we put in evidence
that an excessive WRB or IRB (cyan) may deflect the stand thus com-
pressing more the center of the strip than the edges. If the deflection
due to the applied WRB/IRB prevails on that corresponding to the
rolling force (blue), then the center of the strip is more elongated
than the edges and central waves or “center buckle” defects may
be observed as post-rolling effect. Indeed, an excessive lateral IRS
(green) may also cause such a kind of defect. Finally, in Fig. 2(c), it is
shown that, if the rolling force (blue) is strongly unbalanced among
the two sides of the stand, then the material is more compressed on
one side. As a result, one edge is more elongated and lateral waves
may be observed as post-rolling effect. IRS (green) and WRB/IRB
(cyan), being symmetric actuators, cannot be used to correct this
defect type. The force can be “symmetrized” through TLT.
3. Flatness profile decomposition for control: a weighted
discrete Legendre transform approach
A “shape-meter” is a sensor that provides a fixed-dimensional
array of nr shape measurements in the cross-wise direction. The
shape-meter devices can be classified on the basis of the physi-
cal principle used to obtain the shape array. Among the several
shape measurement methods conceived so far, ranging from load-
cell to ultra-sound or optical devices, the most widely used shape
measurement system is the contact-based shape-meter roll, that
relies on force (or tension) transducers. The shape-meter rolls based
on the strain-gage principle have a solid steel core, with several
axial grooves, in which magneto-elastic or resistive transducers
are secured. An alternative contact-based arrangement relies on
air-bearings, that consist in steel rings thrusted by pressurized
air, spatially distributed in the width direction. Due to the strip’s
tension, the rings are pushed toward the core of the roll. The dis-
placement of the rings towards the center is therefore the physical
quantity measured by these devices.
All the contact-based shape-meters provide an array (k) ∈ Rnr
of specific strip’s tension measurements at discrete-time instants
k ∈ N. The shape of a strip of length L subjected to a tension in the
longitudinal direction is usually expressed in I-Units [IU], defined
as
L
1 [IU] = 105 ,
L
where L/L is the tension-induced relative elongation. For tension
levels within the elastic deformation range, the shape array can be
straightforwardly obtained from the specific tension array  by:
s(k) = 105 E −1 ((k) − mean((k))) ∈ Rnr ,
where E is the elastic Young’s modulus of the material.
In case of a non-maximal strip width, the lateral signal sources
corresponding to the most external sectors do not cover the metal
strip and, consequently, the corresponding signals are null. In other
terms, at time-instant k, only a smaller array of dimension ns (k) ≤ nr
is actually acquired
s(k) = col [s1 (k), . . . , si (k), . . . , sns (k) ] ∈ Rns (k)
 G. Pin et al. / Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119 111

issue and specific control methods as well), not only the number
ns (k) of non-null signal sources (the length of the measured shape
array) may vary during rolling, but also the coverage fraction for
segments corresponding to the strip width edges exhibits some
drift. Therefore, in carrying out the shape decomposition in basic
components, it turns out quite natural to apply time-varying
weights to the elements of the shape. The adaptive exploitation
of this “time-varying weighting” is one of the main peculiarities of
the proposed AFC technique.
In the sequel, we will denote by p(k) = col [p1 (k), . . ., pns (k) ] ∈
Rns (k) the positions of the covered segments with respect to the
center-line and by w(k) the instantaneous width of the strip. The
elements of the weight vector associated to the covered segments,
denoted as l(k) = [l1 (k), . . ., li (k), . . ., lns (k) ], are computed as follows:

p2 (k) + w(k) − pns (k) (k)

l1 (k) = ,
2w(k)
pi+1 (k) − pi−1 (k)
li (k) = , i ∈ {2, . . . , (ns (k) − 1)},
2w(k)
pns (k)−1 (k) + w(k) − p1 (k)
lns (k) (k) = ,
2w(k)

This computation is carried out so that each sample is weighted

according to the ratio of the strip measured by the segment in the
width direction, assuming that the edge segments share the same
fractional coverage.
Then, after having computed the normalized position vector
n(k) = [n1 (k), . . . , nns (k) (k)] ∈ [−1, 1]ns (k) according to

2(pi (k) − mean(p(k)))

ni (k) = ,
w(k)

the proposed discrete transformation relies on evaluating the con-

tinuous Legendre polynomials in correspondence of the normalized
positions, ranging from the 1st up to a prescribed order no , thus
forming an initial matrix of weights W(k).

Remark 3.1. Note in passing that the choice of parameter no

depends on the need of discriminating the effects of the various
flatness actuators. For instance, in a 6-HI stand equipped with only
Fig. 2. (a) Rolling force effect on the strip (left) and the corresponding cross-wise one odd actuator (i.e. the TLT) and two even actuators (i.e. the WRB
shape pattern (right) measured by a segmented shape-meter. (b) Work-roll and and IRB), the most typical choice for no is 4 because the 2nd-order
intermediate-roll bending effect on the strip (left) and corresponding cross-wise and 4th-order polynomials jointly allow to discriminate the effect
elongation pattern (right). (c) Differential rolling force effect on the strip (left)
and correspondent cross-wise elongation pattern (right). For pictorial reasons, the
of the WRB from the effect of the IRB. In principle, the use of the
effects of the actuators on the rolled strip are significantly magnified with respect 3rd-order polynomial could be avoided since the odd effect of TLT
to the reality. (For interpretation of the references to color in this citation of figure can be evaluated with the 1st-order one alone, being it the only
the reader is referred to the web version of the article.) odd actuator. In the following, for the sake of simplicity, we skip
such kind of refinements on the numerical complexity also because
their computational complexity is negligible on currently available
and this vector carries reliable information on the shape, where hardware platforms.
ns (k) represents the number of covered sensor signal-sources (seg-
ments) at time k. Let us now consider the following continuous Legendre polyno-
It is worth noting that the segments located at the strip’s edges mials
carry the most relevant shape informations for the control sys- L(1, x) = x,
tem. Indeed, a shape defect located at a strip’s edge determines
(3x2 − 1)
a localized stress on the material that may cause a strip break- L(2, x) = ,
2
age. Therefore, in order to enhance the measurement’s precision at
the edges, the width of the external segments is usually narrower (5x3 − 3x)
L(3, x) = ,
than that of the central zones. For the same reason, from a control 2
perspective, it is important that the flatness target at the edges is (35x4 − 30x2 + 3)
reached faster than the one in the strip’s center. L(4, x) = ,
8
In our scheme, based on Legendre decomposition of the mea-
..
sured shape pattern, the edge priority can be enforced by assigning .
higher weights to the extern-most segments in the computation
1
 d j
of the shape components. Due to strip width variations and mis- L(j, x) = (x2 − 1)j .
alignments (see [8,20] for a deeper insight into the strip centering 2j j! dx
112 G. Pin et al. / Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119

and let us introduce the weighted Legendre transform matrix:

Segment
Position
⎡ ⎤
w1 (k)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. ⎥
⎢. ⎥ −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
⎢ ⎥
W(k)  ⎢ ⎥,
 0.2
⎢ wj (k) ⎥
⎢ ⎥

l(k)1,..., 13
⎢ .. ⎥

l(k)1,..., 8
Weights
⎣. ⎦ 0.1
wno (k)

where 0
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1


wj (k)  l1 (k)L(j, n1 (k)) · · · lns (k) (k)L(j, nns (k) (k)) . 0.6

Note that, although the continuous Legendre polynomials repre-

sent an orthogonal basis with respect to the L2 inner product in 0.4
the continous interval [− 1, + 1], due to the spatial sampling and
to the use of the weights, it turns out that the rows of W(k) do 0.2
not represent anymore an orthogonal basis. Therefore, the follow-

weighted Legendre basis

ing standard procedure (Gram-Schmidt’s orthonormalization) is
adopted to form an orthonormal transform matrix M(k): 0

Orthogonalized
Procedure 3.1 (Gram-Schmidt). Initialization
−0.2

m (k)T1,2,3
1 for j ∈ {1, . . ., no }
2 mj (k) = wj (k) ;
−0.4
end for

Mean removal −0.6

1 for j ∈ {1, . . ., no }
−0.8
2 mj (k) − = mean(mj (k) ); −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
end for Normalized covered segment spositions

Decorrelation/normalization loop Fig. 3. Orthogonalized weighted Legendre basis (1st, 2nd and 3rd order) for a shape-
meter roll with 13 segments and full-coverage (blue) and for a partial-coverage of
8 zones (black). In both situations the edge segments are partially covered (the
1 for j ∈ {1, . . ., no } correspondent li (k) weight is a fraction of central weights), but in the full-coverage
mj (k)
mj (k) =
case the weights of the edge segments are also affected by the reduced width of the
2 ;
|mj (k) | correspondent zone. In the 1st diagram, the physical correspondence between the
3 for i ∈ {j + 1, . . .,

no }  shape arrays is enhanced. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
4 mi (k) − = mj (k) (mi (k)) mj (k) ; end for end for  legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

Due to the hierarchical processing of the vectors, the lower-

order components undergo a small modification with respect to
by projecting the current shape vector s(k) on the orthogonal space
the original weighted Legendre vectors (i.e. the rows of W(k)),
generated by the weighted Legendre basis, that is:
while the higher-order components are significantly affected by
the orthonormalization. Since such a transformation is used mainly c(k) = M(k)s(k). (1)
to reduce the dimensionality of the problem, only a small num-
ber of components is effectively used compared to the dimension Conversely, given the shape components c(k) ∈ Rno , the corre-
the shape array (in practice, we have that no  ns (k)). The resulting sponding minimum-variance shape vector can be obtained as
transform matrix M(k) ∈ Rno ×ns (k) has the following properties: s(k) = M(k) c(k).


• its Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse is M(k)† = M(k) ;
• the 1st and the 2nd rows represent the prototype profiles
impressed by TLT and bendings (i.e. WRB and IRB for a 6HI mill)
on the strip respectively;
• the deformation corresponding the 2nd row controlled by the
bendings is also known as Bow);
• the 4th row represents the prototype profile possibly controlled
by bendings and commonly known as Quarter-Buckle;
• as it will be reported in Section 7 where some field results are
presented, the Bow and the Quarter-Buckle polynomials are con-
ventionally exploited to define the shape target for AFC.
Once the instantaneous transformation matrix M(k) has been
computed, the shape components c(k) ∈ Rno can be simply obtained
Therefore, the use of an orthogonal transformation matrix M(k) is
preferable with respect to the use of the polynomial profile descrip-
tion, both due to its algebraic properties and to the immediacy of
its interpretation.
Furthermore, assuming cref the target for the AFC, then the mea-
sured shape error vector is computed as follows:
e(k) = s(k) − M(k)+ cref , (2)
where cref is in general a vector whose only the 2nd and 4th
elements are non-zero since they correspond to the Bow and
Quarter-Buckle effects respectively.
In Fig. 3, the results of the orthogonalization procedure for the
1st, 2nd and 3rd Legendre basis in correspondence of two dif-
ferent coverage situation is shown. It is worth noting that the
 G. Pin et al. / Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119 113

most significant difference is experienced at the edges, since in the measured shape components ıc(k) = M(k)ıs(k) ∈ Rno at samp-
the full-coverage situation (13 segments, blue) also the edge seg- ling instant t = k as:
ments (which correspond to smaller zones) are covered, while
in the partial-coverage situation (8 segments, black) the covered ıc(k) = S(k)ıu(k − T (k)),
segments (central zones) are equally spaced. Moreover, the normal-
where S(k) = M(k)B(k) ∈ Rno ×m is the so-called instantaneous flat-
ization procedure automatically accounts for the left-misalignment
ness sensitivity matrix (see [12]).
of the strip with respect to the centerline occurring in the par-
As previously pointed out, a time-invariant approximation of
tial coverage case (note the physical correspondence between the
the sensitivity matrix S can be computed off-line though the
measured shape arrays).
mathematical models implemented in the Level 2 automation
before the start the next rolling process on the basis of nominal
mill/material parameters (see [9]). Of course, in case of a revers-
4. On-line sensitivity identification
ing process, a set of sensitivities can be computed for each rolling
pass on the basis of the specified and pre-determined rolling sched-
The AFC task is a technological demanding controller when
ule.
applied to multi-roll cold rolling mill both in terms of stability
In order to be able to remove the bias in the estimates produced
and also in terms of optimality. For instance, a flat steel producer
by the proposed on-line adaptation algorithm, it is necessary to
operating a cold rolling mill can decide to adopt a 6-HI solution
augment both the sensitivity matrix and the input vector with a
instead of a 4-HI solution since the availability of both WRB and
supplementary row and with a further constant unitary element.
IRB (instead of only one bending actuator) allows potentially to
Specifically, we express the actual value of the flatness as
keep under control both the Bow effect and the Quarter-Buckle
corresponding to the 2nd and 4th polynomials presented in the c(k) = Sext (k)uext (k − T (k)) , (4)
previous section. Of course, this is possible in an unsupervised
closed-loop manner only in case the applied AFC technology is where Sext (k) = [S(k) | sext (k)] ∈ being sext (k) ∈ Rno ×(m+1) ,
a col- Rno
able to exactly discriminate the effects of these two bending actu- umn vector of bias elements and uext (k) = col [u(k) 1] ∈ Rm+1 the
ators. The interested reader is referred to [9] where a discussion extended input vector.
on the potential flatness control capabilities of a 20-HI stand is An instantaneous estimate of the extended sensitivity can in
presented. principle be obtained by the exponentially-weighted least squares
The precision in discriminating the effects of all the actuators (EWLS) method (to discard the information from old data and track
influences not only the performance (i.e. for a 6-HI, the ability slow parameter variations) which seeks for the solution of the fol-
to correct both the Bow and the Quarter-Buckle effects thus fully lowing linear quadratic problem:
exploiting the mechanical components),but also the control sta-  
bility. Indeed, a wrong estimation of the sensitivities wrt to shape Ŝext (k) = min {tr([Y(k) − Uext (k)X] f × [Y(k) − Uext (k)X])},
X∈R(m+1)×no
could lead to a situation where similar actuators (e.g. WRB and IRB)
do not cooperate thus increasing the possibility of actuator satura- where
⎡ ⎤
tion. These reasons motivate the need of an adaptation mechanism, c (k)
like the one described in this section, to effectively estimate on line
⎢ c (k − 1) ⎥
(i.e. also during rolling) the flatness sensitivity matrix. The main ⎢ ⎥
difference between an on-line estimation and a traditional off-line Y(k) = ⎢
⎢
⎥ ∈ Rk×n ,
⎥
one (i.e. before AFC execution and together with the initial setup ⎣ ... ⎦
computation) is the ability to accommodate for the unavoidable dif- c (T (0))
ferences among the incoming material pieces entering the rolling
process. is the measurement matrix,
Since the shape-meter is located at a non negligible distance ⎡ ⎤
u
ext (k − T (k))
Drb,sm from the roll-bite, the measured shape vector s(t) ∈ Rns (t) is
affected by a time-delay T(t) which depends on the velocity v(t) of ⎢ u (k − 1 − T (k − 1)) ⎥
⎢ ext ⎥
the strip, that is Uext (k) = ⎢
⎢.
⎥ ∈ Rk×m
⎥
⎣ .. ⎦
 t
T (t) : v()d = Drb,sm . u
ext (0)
t−T (t)
is the regressors’ matrix, and
Therefore, the infinitesimal variation ıs(t) = s(t) − s(t − dt), due to
⎡ ⎤
1 0 ··· ··· 0
a variation of the actuator values ıu(t − T (t)) = u(t − T (t)) − u(t − ⎢0 f 0 ··· 0 ⎥
T (t) − dt) ∈ Rm , with u(t) = [u1 (t), . . ., um (t)] ∈ Rm can be approxi- ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
mated reasonably well by a linear relation ⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥
⎢
2⎢. 0 . . . ⎥
f = (1 − f ) ⎢ ⎥ ∈ Rk×k
⎥
ıs(t) = B(t, t − T (t))ıu(t − T (t)), (3) ⎢ ... .. ..
.
..
. ⎥
⎢ . 0 ⎥
⎢0 k−1
⎥
where B(t, t − T (t)) ∈ Rns (t)×m is a sensitivity matrix whose ⎣ 0 ··· 0 f ⎦
dimensions depend on the instantaneous strip width over the
shape-meter (number of covered segments at time t). In the sequel,
by assuming a negligible variation of the main rolling parameters is the exponential weighting matrix.
in the time-interval [t − T(t), t] and with a slight abuse of notation, The EWLS problem admits the following well-known batch solu-
we set B(t) = B(t, t − T(t)). tion:
To build a simplified discrete-time linear model with fixed T
−1
dimensions, in view of (1) and (3), we can express the variation of Ŝext (k) = U
ext (k)f Uext (k) U
ext (k)f Y(k) .
114 G. Pin et al. / Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119

In practice, the matrix U

ext (k)f Uext (k) is typically badly numeri-
the iteration asymptotically converges to the non-smoothed LS
cally conditioned (especially during the initial adaptation steps). solution.
In this respect, the numerical stability of the algorithm can be Finally, compared to RLS with exponential forgetting – a com-
improved by resorting to the following Recursive Regularized EWLS monly used solution to implement adaptive algorithms in real-time
problem (RREWLS): platforms (see [21,23]) – the proposed technique is not affected by
the covariance windup problem, of course at the cost of a slight

Ŝext (k) = min {tr((1 − )[Y(k) − U(k)X] f [Y(k) − U(k)X] increase in the overall computational burden.
X∈R(m+1)×no

T 

+  X − Ŝext (k − 1) X − Ŝext (k − 1) )},
5. Flatness control based on prioritized optimization
with  ∈ [0, 1] being a regularization parameter.
To reduce the on-line computational burden, a recursive imple- Once an estimate of the sensitivity matrix has been obtained,
mentation is considered with the following exponential updates of such an estimate can be exploited in a closed-loop algorithm
auto-covariance and cross-covariance matrices: to correct on-line the strip shape. The precision of this esti-
mation is the necessary condition to guarantee (at least in
Pext (k) = f Pext (k − 1) + (1 − f )[uext (k − T (k))uext  (k − T (k))]
steady state) the good performance of the control task with
(5) respect to the potential capabilities of the mechanical installa-
tion.
The proposed flatness-control approach is based on the concept
ext (k) = f ext (k − 1) + (1 − f )[uext (k − T (k)) c (k)] (6) of prioritized optimization in analogy with the “Task-space con-
trol” approach used in the robotics context, in which a sequence
with k ∈ Z>0 and zero initial conditions (unless there are statis-
of objectives at a given priority are achieved as closely as pos-
tics available from previous runs). In (5) and (6) the parameter
sible without interfering with higher-priority ones. This control
f ∈ [0, 1] is a learning gain that can be used to tune the conver-
approach allows to face without any complex additional logic the
gence speed of the estimator, while uext (k − T(k)) can be obtained
following typical problems that could occur in cold-rolling con-
by suitably delaying the actuators’ values. In view of the fact that
text:
Pext (k) = U 
ext (k)f Uext (k) and ext (k) = Uext (k)f Y(k), the regular-
ized regression can be efficiently solved in a recursive way by using
the on-line covariances instead of batch data:
• Several actuator configurations could be equivalent in terms of
 
Ŝext (k) = [(1−)Pext (k)+I]−1 × [ Ŝext (k − 1)+(1 − )ext (k)]. the obtained shape. This in particular happens when sensitivities
of more actuators have been estimated as similar. In this cas,e it is
(7)
necessary to avoid configurations where actuators fight between
Of course the estimation of the RREWLS algorithm can be boot- them.
 • Each flatness actuator is subject to saturation that should be
strapped by setting Ŝext (0) equal to the sensitivity matrix
estimated off-line by the models installed in the Level 2 system by avoided if possible.

augmenting it with a zero-bias, that is, Ŝext (0) = [Sext L2 | 0 ]. Note
that the regularization parameter  guarantees the strict positive
Task-space control has a long history in robotics (see [24,25]
definitedness of [(1 − )Pext (k) + I], which thus is always invert-
for a recent survey) and can be applied to over-actuated linear
ible. Finally, Ŝ(k) can be retrieved from Ŝext (k) by extracting the
systems with interfering actuators, enabling the superposition of
corresponding sub-matrix.
user-specified (linear or quadratic) constraints on state variables
A further modification that has been introduced to decouple
and control inputs. In this work, we modify the compact iterative
the filtering action from the instantaneous trace of Pext (k) which
task-space formulation proposed in [26], in order to meet the flat-
consists in the following trace-dependent smoothed update:
ness control requirements, in terms of computational efficiency

Ŝext (k) = [(1 − )Pext (k) + (tr(Pext (k)))I]−1 and actuator decoupling. The proposed method allows to han-
dle an arbitrary number of user-specified flatness actuators: the

× [(tr(Pext (k))) Ŝext (k − 1) + (1 − )ext (k)], most complex case the authors treated in the field (a 20-HI rolling
mill) include tiling, 3 bending actuators, 2 shifting actuators, and 4
where  > 0 is a positive scalar introduced to always ensure the
“wedges”.
invertibility of the smoothed autocovariance matrix, even in case
tr(Pext (k)) = 0.
It is worth noting that, in the context of “constant-trace”
recursive least squares (RLS) algorithms (see, for example [21] 5.1. Prioritized optimization concepts and formulation
for generalities on the method and [22] for an application
to the bow-control in hot strip mills), regularization is typ- Let us describe the concept of prioritized optimization in our
ically carried out in order to prevent the estimator-windup framework of task-space control. Given a set of N objective func-
phenomenon. Instead, in our framework, the “trace-dependent” tions J1 (x), . . ., Ji (x), . . ., JN (x) over some variable x ∈ Rm (tasks),
smoothed update has been introduced with the aim of guar- ordered from the highest to the lowest priority, only N steps are
anteeing a “uniform” behavior of the filter in the whole range needed to define the solution to this problem. A prioritized opti-
of operating regimes, since the quantity tr(Pext (k)) may vary mization problem aims first in minimizing J1 (x). Since tasks are
quite significantly during the production process due to the generally under-constrained, J1 (x) typically has multiple minimi-
dependence on the more recent input values (see (5)). More- zers. The next goal is to find which among these valid minimizers
over, comparing with the regularized least-squares regression does minimize J2 (x), and the same scheme is iterated over the sub-
(based on Levenberg–Marquardt regularized pseudoinversion and sequent objectives. Therefore, the overall prioritized task-space
used when the batch data are not well-conditioned), the regular- optimization algorithm can be written in terms of a sequence of
ized recursion (7) ensures unbiased sensitivity estimates. Indeed, elementary constrained optimizations problems:
 G. Pin et al. / Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119 115

J1◦ = min J1 (x), the parametrized form for x◦i (that is, substituting (12) into (10)),
x∈Rm
we have
J2◦ = min J2 (x),
x∈Rm
x◦i (xi+2 ) = Ni (Ni+1 xi+2 + di+1 ) + di .
subject to J1 (x) = J1◦

.. For any value of xi+2 , a minimizer of both Ji and Ji+1 can be deter-
. mined as for the preceding step. Proceeding by induction, the
Ji◦ = min Ji (x), parametrized solution of an optimization problem made of N tasks
x∈Rm (8) can be expressed as follows:
subject to J1 (x) = J1◦ , . . . , Ji−1 (x) = Ji−1
◦
⎧ ⎫
N ⎨ i−1 ⎬
..   
N
 
. x1 x◦2 (. . . x◦N (xN+1 ) . . .) =
◦
{Nj } xN+1 + {Nj } di ,
⎩ ⎭
JN◦ = min JN (x), j=1 i=1 j=1
x∈Rm (13)
subject to J1 (x) = J1◦ , . . . , JN−1 (x) = JN−1
◦
where  we can set xN+1 =0 to determine a minimum-norm solution
d = x◦1 x◦2 (. . . x◦N (0) . . .) .
The prioritized task-space solver can be efficiently formulated
Then, the overall solution is the value d = argmin JN (x) solving the
x∈Rm as in the following Procedure.
Nth optimization problem (the solution of the Nth optimization
problem possibly may not be unique; in this case, to address the Procedure 5.1 (Prioritized task-space solver). Initialization
un-determinedness issue, we pick one arbitrary minimum-norm
solution). In this paper, we focus on the case in which all the objec- 1 set N = I;
tives are positive-semidefinite quadratic forms, that is: 2 set d = 0;

Ji (x) = ||Ai x + bi ||2 , (9) Nullspace loop

for some matrix Ai ∈ R(no +m)×m and some vector bi ∈ Rno referred
to as residual vector in the sequel. 1 for i ∈ {1, . . ., m}
Next, we show that, for the specific class of quadratic objec- 2 set Ai = Ai N, with Ai as in (14);
tives (9), it is not necessary to solve N constrained optimization compute the residual vector: bi = bi + Ai d;
†
problems. Indeed, d can be obtained by back-calculation, after a 3 d − = N Ai bi ;
suitable parametrization of the space of optimal solutions for each 4 if Ai is full-rank then
task. Since the space of optimal solutions of the ith positive semidef- 5 return d;
inite quadratic objective must be a linear subspace, it is possible to end if;
parametrize the elements of the set 6 update the overall nullspace: N = N nsp(Ai );
end for. 
{x◦i ∈ Rm : Ji (x◦i ) = min Ji (x)}
x∈Rm
5.2. Unconstrained flatness task-space control
by a vector xi+1 ∈ Rm as

x◦i (xi+1 ) = Ni xi+1 + di , (10) Now, the application of the task-space optimization procedure
described in the previous section is described. The first step clearly
†
where di = −Ai bi is a minimum-norm minimizer of (9) and relies in specifying N objectives. It is worth pointing out that the
Ni = nsp(Ai ) is a null-space basis for Ai , which can be computed as choice of the tasks deeply affects the final solution. Moreover, as a
† consequence of the adoption of a specific set of objectives, further
Ni = I − Ai Ai .
simplifications can be introduced to improve the efficiency of the
Clearly, for any value of xi+1 , a minimizer of Ji can be determined algorithm.
and hence xi+1 can be exploited to minimize the lower-priority In particular, in the flatness-control problem under concern, at
objectives. We can express the (i + 1)th objective in terms of the each time instant k, we consider a set of N = m objectives, that is, a
parametrization (10): number of objectives equal to the number of optimization variables,
that, in turn, is equal to the number of actuators. In the unconstrained
Ji+1 (xi+1 ) = ||Ai+1 x◦i (xi+1 ) + bi+1 ||2 framework, the matrices Ai (k) and the residual vectors bi (k) are
specified as follows:
= ||Ai+1 Ni xi+1 + (bi+1 + Ai+1 di ) ||2 (11)
    
= ||Ai+1 xi+1 + bi+1 ||2 , diag( e )Ŝ(k) ê(k)
Ai (k) =  , bi (k) = , (14)
diag( ui ) 0
where Ai+1  Ai+1 Ni and the residual is given by bi+1  bi+1 +
Ai+1 di . where e ∈ Rno is a vector with positive elements common to all
Next, it is possible to parametrize the elements of the set the tasks, whilst ui is specialized to the particular objective and
  is given by ui  [∞ , . . ., ∞ , ui , ∞ , . . ., ∞ ], with ui a positive
x◦i+1 ∈ Rm : Ji+1 (x◦i+1 ) = min Ji+1 (x)
x∈Rm scalar and ∞
ui .
The vector ê(k) ∈ Rno in (14) is an estimate of the current shape
by a vector xi+2 ∈ Rm given by error, which is obtained by the available delayed shape measure-
x◦i+1 (xi+2 ) = Ni+1 xi+2 + di+1 , (12) ment c(k − T(k)) by means of the following prediction scheme:

ê(k) = c(k − T (k)) − cref + Ŝ(k) (u(k) − u(k − T (k))) , (15)

where Ni+1 = nsp(Ai+1 ) is a nullspace basis for Ai+1 and di+1 =
†
−Ai+1 bi+1 is a minimizer of (11). Then, substituting x◦i+1 back into where cref is a given vector of reference variables (see also Eq. (2)).
116 G. Pin et al. / Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119
Clearly, the above prediction relies on the assumption that the
true sensitivity matrix S is approximately constant within the time-
interval [k − T(k), k], and that a reasonably good sensitivity estimate
is available. In view of (14), the ith objective can be written as
Ji (x) = x u x + [ê(k) + Ŝ(k)x] e [ê(k) + Ŝ(k)x],
with ui = diag(ui ) and e = diag(e ).
For a given finite u i and for ∞ → + ∞, each ith optimiza-
tion step in Procedure (5.1) modifies only the ith component of
d, without influencing the other elements. In our setup, setting
◦
u (k) = u◦ (k) − u(k − 1) = d as the control vector yielded by the
task-space optimizer, it turns out that each ith objective yields the
◦ containing all the measurements from the shape-meter’s segments.
optimal scalar correction ui (k) corresponding the ith actuator
(being u(k) = [u1 (k), . . . , ui (k) . . . , um (k)]).
Remark 5.1. In the flatness control framework, the highest pri-
ority objectives are always optimized with respect to tilting and
bending, while assigning to lower priority tasks the computation
of the control corrections for the other actuators.
5.3. Constraints handling
As at each step, the optimization is performed with respect to a
single actuator, let us consider the following scalar constraints:
ui (k) ≤ min{ui , ui − ui (k − 1)},
ui (k) ≥ max{ui , ui − ui (k − 1)},
Constraints (17) can be imposed simply by clipping the correction
returned by the ith optimization step and feeding the subsequent
lower-priority optimization steps with a modified residual. In (17),
ui and ui denote the upper and lower differential (rate) con-
straints, while ui and ui represent the absolute constraints on the
ith actuator. Particularizing the prioritized solver to the shape con-
trol problem, and taking advantage of the structure of the objective
matrices and vectors, the constrained task-space optimization can
be implemented efficiently by the following
Procedure 5.2 (Task-space flatness control). Initialization
1 set N = I;
2 set u(k) = 0;
Nullspace loop
1 for i ∈ {1, . . ., m}
2 set Ai = Ai N, with  Ai as in (14); 
† e(k) + Ŝ(k)u(k)
3 u(k) − = N Ai
0
(only the ith element ui (k) of u(k) is modified,
† Fig. 4 shows that, while the transient performances are similar,
thus only the ith row of (N Ai ) is strictly needed);
4 Clip ui (k) within the bounds (17);
5 Update the overall nullspace: N = N nsp(Ai );
end for;
6 apply u(k) = u(k) + u(k − 1) to the plant. 
5.4. Selective cooling
The selective cooling (SRC) aims at spraying the various sections
of the work rolls along the strip width with controlled water mass-
flows in order to create a desired crowned shape by controlling the
thermal expansion of the work rolls sections. Due to the fact that
the dynamics related to this thermal effect are extremely slow if
compared to the other hydraulic/electrical flatness actuators, this
special actuator is commanded with a different logic inside the AFC
task.
It is worth pointing out that the effect of SRC could be quite
different according to the thermal global status of the mill: in par-
ticular when the mill re-start after a long production interruption
the thermal expansion effects are extremely far from their steady
state condition.
(16)
More specifically, in the case in which a SRC system has been
installed on the mill stand, the control of the spray injections is
usually done by a specific dedicated module, which embeds a P-I
control-loop for each spray nozzle. It is worth noting that in most
cases the number of SRC spray nozzles correspond one-by-one to
the sensor signal sources of the shape-meter. The selective cooling
control module expects as input an array of shape residual errors
More precisely, the SRC based control is fed with the following
residual error:
 
eSRC (k) = nsp (M(k)) s(k) − M (k)cref
where cref is the desired shape target used in Eq. (15). Note in
passing that in view of the orthogonality of M(k) the nullspace
nsp (M(k)) can be efficiently computed as I − M (k)M(k). Then, the
control signal to each spray nozzle is derived from a PI regulator as
follows:
 
Nozzlej (k) = PI j eSRC j (k) , j = 1, .., ns .
Finally, the control signals Nozzlej (k) are clipped in the range [0, 1]
(17)
since these signals represent the percentage of a given cycle-time
during which the nozzle is kept open.
6. Simulation-based robustness analysis
In the following simulation, we compare the performances of
two implementations of the task-space controller: one with fixed
sensitivities and the other provided of the devised on-line adapta-
tion mechanism. As it will be seen, the adaptive scheme, being able
of determining the true sensitivity, is able to effectively improve
the final shape compared to the non-adaptive implementation, that
reaches a deadlock configuration. A finite-element model of a 6-
Hi mill stand1 has been used to simulate the roll-stack deflection
under the action of the task-space AFC, that generates trims for the
tilting, the WRB, the IRB and the IRS of the stand.
The convergence of the AFC towards the final target is conven-
tionally represented in a 2D form by the shape error quality signal
(performance index),, derived from the shape error vector as fol-
lows
(k) = mean(abs(e(k))) (18)
where the vector e(k) represents the shape error vector at the time
instant k (see Eq. (2)).
the shape error achievable with the adaptive scheme is lower that
in the non-adaptive case. The shape target, together with the final
shapes achieved by the two methods, is depicted in Fig. 5, while the
control inputs in the two cases are shown in Fig. 6. While the sta-
tionary shape error index is 20% lower when the adaptation is used
(from 5 to 4 IU), the improvement turns out particularly significant
correspondence of the strip’s edges, where the local shape error has
been reduced by 5 IU. The residual error affecting the final shape
in the current simulation can be reduced in practice by shaping the
1
The finite element model used in the simulation has been originally developed
as a Level 2 application, used for optimizing off-line the machine setup and for
computing the rolling schedule. An interface with Matlab has been developed to
perform the dynamic closed-loop simulation with a Matlab implementation of the
task-space AFC.
 G. Pin et al. / Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119 117

10 work rolls with a prescribed grinding pattern or by using additional

local shape actuators such as selective cooling sprays.
8 The sensitivity matrix assigned to the non-adaptive controller
Shape error [IU]

and the one identified at the end of the simulation are reported
6
below:
⎡ ⎤
4 −90 0 0 0
⎢0 10 5 −10 ⎥
2 S=⎢ ⎥,
⎣ −30 0 0 0 ⎦
0 0 3 0 −10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
t [s] ⎡ ⎤
−90.801 0 0 0
Fig. 4. Shape error quality signal produced by the task-space AFC with adaptation ⎢0 15.641 32.619 −39.494 ⎥
(blue-solid) and with fixed sensitivities (black-dotted). The adaptive implementa- Ŝ(t = 100) = ⎢ ⎥
tion, being capable of determining the true sensitivities, finds the optimal direction ⎣ −33.389 0.132 −0.145 −0.005 ⎦ .
of correction, while the non-adaptive scheme gets stuck in a deadlock configura- 0 15.803 5.6357 −16.093
tion. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of the article.) The initial value for the sensitivity in the adaptive case has been set
to Ŝ(t = 0) = S, that, in turn, has been obtained by injecting small
actuator steps to the model in correspondence of the initial con-
8 figuration and then rounded to unity, according to the common
practice adopted in the commissioning of the automation system.
6
4 7. A real industrial case-study
Shape [IU]

2
The adoption of an efficient recursive identification mechanism
0
and the use of the task-space approach has permitted the imple-
−2 mentation of the described adaptive control strategy on a hard
−4 real-time industrial programmable controller such as the a VME-
based 2 hardware platform with a Motorola 6100 CPU. The AFC
−6
task, that carries out all the computations required by the control
−8 scheme for a 6-HI mill, runs with 50 ms cycle-time and 15% CPU
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
Normalized pos. load.
Next, we will present the results obtained by the application of
Fig. 5. Target shape pattern (black-dashed) compared with the final shapes obtained the proposed control scheme to a three-stand 6-Hi tandem mill,
by the task-space AFC with sensitivity adaptation (blue-solid) and without adapta- in which the task-space AFC system adjusts the reference values
tion (black-dotted). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, for tilting, WRB and IRB of the last stand. The third stand is also
the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)
equipped by a selective roll cooling spray system, controlled by the
decoupling strategy described in Section 5.4.
In this kinds of plants the most difficult task, as far as the shape
control is concerned, consists in identifying the sensitivities of WRB
0.1
and IRB actuators, that may be very similar. A successful identifica-
TLT [mm]

0.05 tion of their specific effect on the strip may lead to the application
0 of a bending force difference (WRB-IRB) that can effectively remove
−0.05 quarterbuckle-type defects, that may appear in coils of large width
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
as a consequence of stand deflection.
500
In the following, we present the results obtained by rolling two
IRB[kN]

0 coils 1500 mm wide having target thickness 0.3 mm. The shape
500 quality index defined in Eq. (18) and the trends of WRB and IRB
0
correction are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The variation of the bending
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 force difference (WRB–IRB) along the same coil is mainly due to the
−200 fact that the AFC implicitly counteracts the thermal expansion of
WRB [kN]

200 the rolls, maintaining the flatness profile in a neighbourhood of the

0 target. The time-trend of the strip’s exit speed is also shown to put
in evidence that the increase of shape error in case of accelerations
−200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 is negligible under the closed-loop shape control.
10 To better assess the performance of the proposed AFC scheme,
IRS[mm]

in Fig. 9 we show the statistical distribution of the so-called sta-

0
tionary shape error index (SSE) in a dataset of 400 coils having
−10 etherogenous widths ranging from 1250 mm to 1500 mm and with
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 thicknesses from 0.25 mm to 0.58 mm. The SSE is a condensed per-
t [s]
formance index, derived from the shape error quality signal (see
Eq. (18)), which is used to evaluate the flatness quality of a single
Fig. 6. Control inputs during the simulation of the task-space AFC with adaptation
(blue-solid) and with fixed sensitivities (black-dotted). (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
the article.) 2
Versa Module European.
118 G. Pin et al. / Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119

30 50
Shape error[IU]

20 40

SSE Distribution [%]

10 30

0 20
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Coil length coordinate [m]
10
800
Mill exit speed [mpm]

0
600 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stationary Shape Error [IU]
400
100

Cumulative SSE Distribution [%]

200

0 80
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Coil length coordinate [m]
60
600
WRB (blu line) [kN] −
IRB (green line) [kN]

40
400
20
200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 Stationary Shape Error [IU]
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Coil length coordinate [m]
Fig. 9. Distribution of the stationary shape error (see (19)) in a production dataset
of 400 coils (top). Cumulative distribution of SSE in the same dataset (bottom).
Fig. 7. Trend of the shape quality index measured by the shape-meter roll for a steel
coil processed by a three-stand 6-HI tandem mill (top). Exit mill speed (middle).
Feedback values of IRB and WRB under the action of the adaptive task-space AFC coil. The statistical distribution of the SSE in a batch of coils can be
(bottom).
used to evaluate the overall flatness quality of the production and
the performances achievable by the mill. In the following lines, we
describe how the SSE index is computed.
For each ith coil, a set of data samples Si is collected by the
Level 2 automation system during rolling, that contains product
15 quality and plant informations used for monitoring, performance
assessment and process optimization (e.g. rolling force, speed and
Shape error[IU]

10 thickness trends, shape error, actuator values, etc.). Denoting by

Si ⊆ Si the subset of samples corresponding to stationary exit speed
5 conditions, let Si|(<) contain all the stationary samples whose
shape error quality is lower than a given threshold , i.e.:
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
!
Coil length coordinate [m]
Si|(<) = s ∈ Si : (s) ≤  .

where (s) is the shape error index of a sample s ∈ Si . Then, the SSE
600
Mill exit speed [mpm]

of the ith coil is defined as:

" #
400 #Si|(<)
SSE i = min ∈N: ≥ 0.9973 , (19)
#Si
200
where # denotes the cardinality of a numerable set.
0 From the bottom histogram in Fig. 9 it emerges that the 84% of
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 the coils in the batch, produced with the proposed AFC scheme, has
Coil length coordinate [m]
an SSE lower or equal than 4 IU, and all the coils in the dataset fulfill
300 the SSE performance limit threshold of 8IU.
WRB (blu line) [kN] −
IRB (green line) [kN]

200
8. Concluding remarks

100 In the present work, a new flatness control methodology for cold
multi-roll mill stands has been described, capable to fit to many
0 different plant’s arrangements with minimal modifications and to
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Coil length coordinate [m] bring significant advantages in terms of control precision, flexibility
and commissioning time reduction. The proposed method consists
Fig. 8. Trend of the shape quality index measured by the shape-meter roll for a steel in parametrizing the profile in the so-called weighted Legendre
coil processed by a three-stand 6-HI tandem mill (top). Exit mill speed (middle).
transform components, to compute on-line the sensitivity models,
Feedback values of IRB and WRB under the action of the adaptive task-space AFC
(bottom). and in computing the control action on the basis of an efficient pri-
oritized optimization scheme. The proposed methodology allows to
 G. Pin et al. / Journal of Process Control 23 (2013) 108–119
implement, in a real-time platform, those adaptive features usually
performed by higher-level controllers. Several algorithmic, numer-
ical and implementation details have been described, in order to
show the advances introduced by the proposed flatness control
approach. Simulation and real results obtained from an industrial
implementation have been reported as well.
Future research efforts will be devoted to embed actuators’
nonlinearities in the task-space formalism and to improve the
numerical efficiency of the task-space solver, in order to further
reduce the on-line computational load.
References
[1] W. Roberts, Flat Processing of Steel, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1988, new York.
[2] J.V. Antwerp, A. Featherstone, R. Braatz, B. Ogunnaike, Cross-directional control
of sheet and film processes, Automatica 43 (2007) 191–211.
[3] F. Cuzzola, T. Parisini, Automation and control solutions for flat strip metal
processing, in: W. Levine (Ed.), The Control Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, 2011.
[4] J. Pittner, M. Simaan, Tandem Cold Metal Rolling Mill Control: Using Practical
Advanced Methods, Springer-Verlag, London, 2011.
[5] G. Pin, V. Francesconi, F. Cuzzola, S. Martinis, T. Parisini, Adaptive task-space
control of strip flatness in multiroll mill stands, in: Proceedings of the 2011
IFAC World Congress, 2011, pp. 11720–11725.
[6] M. Grimble, J. Fotakis, The design of strip shape control systems for Sendzimir
mills, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 27 (3) (1982) 656–666.
[7] T. Saito, T. Ohnishi, T. Komatsu, S. Miyoshi, H. Kitamura, M. Kitahama, Automatic
flatness control in tandem cold rolling mill for ultra-thin gauge strip, Kawasaki
Steel Technical Report 24 (1991) 41–46.
[8] P. Szczepanski, H. Kothe, M. Jelali, M. Markworth, Improvement of Strip Guiding
and Related Effects in Cold Rolling of High-strength Steel Grades, European
Commission Publications Office, 2009.
[9] M. Zipf, C. Godwin, Shape correction capabilities envelopes of 20-high cluster
mills, in: METEC SteelSim, Dusseldorf, Germany, 2011.
[10] A. Bemporad, D. Bernardini, F. Cuzzola, A. Spinelli, Optimization-based auto-
matic flatness control in cold tandem rolling, Journal of Process Control 20 (4)
(2010) 396–407.
119
[11] V. Ginzburg, Flat-rolled Steel Processes. Advanced Technologies, CRC Press,
Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2009.
[12] H.-M. Liu, X.-L. Zhang, Y.-R. Wang, Transfer matrix method of flatness con-
trol for strip mills, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 166 (2005)
237–242.
[13] J. Ringwood, M. Grimble, Shape control in Sendzimir mills using both crown
and intermediate roll actuators, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 35 (4)
(1990) 453–459.
[14] J. Ringwood, Multivariable control using the singular value decomposition
in steel rolling with quantitative robustness assessment, Control Engineering
Practice 3 (4) (1995) 495–503.
[15] J. Ringwood, Shape control systems for Sendzimir steel mills, IEEE Transactions
on Control Systems Technology 8 (1) (2000) 70–86.
[16] V. Ginzburg, Steel Rolling Technology: Theory and Practice, Marcel Dekker Inc.,
New York, Basel, 1991.
[17] R. Guo, A. Malik, A development of new crown/shape control model for cluster
mills, Iron and Steel Technology 2 (8) (2005) 31–40.
[18] A. Malik, R. Grandhi, A computational method to predict strip profile in rolling
mills, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 206 (2007) 263–274.
[19] W. Roberts, Cold Rolling of Steel, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1978.
[20] I. Malloci, J. Daafouz, C. Iung, R. Bonidal, P. Szczepanski, Robust steering control
of hot strip mill, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 18 (4) (2010)
908–917.
[21] K. Åström, B. Wittenmark, Adaptive Control, Addison-Wesley P.C, Reading, MA,
1971.
[22] W. Hong, J. Choi, J. Kim, J. Yi, Flatness adaptive control of a hot strip in finishing
mills, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture 217 (9) (2003) 1243–1252.
[23] J. Ringwood, Least squares identification with application to shape control in
a Sendzimir mill, in: Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Boston,
MA, 1985.
[24] O. Khatib, A unified approach to motion and force control of robot manip-
ulators: the operational space formulation, IEEE Journal of Robotics and
Automation 3 (1) (1987) 43–53.
[25] J. Nakanishi, R. Cory, M. Mistry, J. Peters, S. Schaal, Operational space con-
trol: a theoretical and empirical comparison, International Journal of Robotics
Research 27 (6) (2008) 737–757.
[26] M. De Lasa, A. Hertzmann, Prioritized optimization for task-space control, in:
Proceedings of the IROS’09, 2009.