Papers - Preferred Orientations Produced by Cold-rolling Low-carbon Sheet Steel (With Discussion)

Although a large number of X-ray photograms of cold-rolled steel have been published, two circumstances have led to the experimental work reported in this paper. The first is that no complete study, making use of the pole-figure method of Weverl, has been made of cold-rolled low-carbon steel. Wever has published pole figures of mild steel subjected to plane parallel deformation1, 2 and undoubtedly he has applied the method to cold-rolled mild steel, but the authors have not found these data published. Kurdjumow and Sachs3 have applied the method to the study of rolling and recrystallization textures in electrolytic iron; their results will be referred to later. The reason for this dearth of papers using the pole-figure method is obvious; a greater number of photograms and more analytical work (although this work is quite simple and straightforward) are required to construct a pole figure than most investigators have felt worth while, despite the fact that no other method of which the authors are aware will satisfactorily depict the orientations of the crystallites in a polycrystalline aggregate. The second circumstance that led to the work reported in this paper was the appearance of a paper by Wayne A. Sisson4 on the same subject. In his valuable study of the factors influencing the development of preferred orientations in cold-rolled mild steel, Sisson made one observation that required confirmation; that is, that at some stage of the rolling process the type of preferred orientation changed from the type that gives a photogram characterized as a "six-point" X-ray pattern to that known as a "four-point" pattern. A similar observation had been made by Tam-mann and Heinzel5, who studied the orientations developed in the rolling of steel by the specular reflection of light from the etched surface of rolled samples. These workers also found that the type of preferred orientation changed during the rolling process. The authors had some difficulty in seeing how this behavior could be consistent with modern views on the genesis of preferred orientations, particularly with those of Wever2