The impact of coil winding induced problems in strip processing is

described and the common causes of those problems identified. The

criteria for designing a suitable coil winding strategy are listed and the
constraints arising in typical strip processing plants discussed. Special
attention is given to the development of head end tension practices, often
referred to as hardcore tension policies, which minimise coil collapse
and coil telescoping frequencies. A simulation model is employed to
facilitate the strategy investigation. Suitably defined dimensionless
parameters are introduced to reduce the dimensionality of the problem
and to yield novel insights into the internal stress distributions of wound
coils and the effect of mandrel shrinkage during winding. Finally, the effect
of thickness profile and poor flatness upon the coil winding behaviour are
described.

The Mystery of Coil Winding

WJ Edwards
Managing Director
Industrial Automation Services
G Boulton
Research Engineer
Industrial Automation Services

Copyright 2001 Association of Iron and Steel Engineers

Introduction

When the first hot rolled coils were produced off

the ARMCO Butler hot tandem mill in the 1920s
it opened up a new era in metal strip production.
Previously strip was processed in sheet form
through hot and cold rolling, annealing, temper
rolling, galvanizing and corrugating. Even so, the
handling of strip material in coil form is not
without its challenges as will be illustrated in
discussions of the fundamental principles of coil
winding technology.
Coil winding and unwinding are the most
frequent operations performed on flat strip
material in its journey from the casting operation
to the final manufacturing stage. So it is
surprising that there is a negligible amount of
information available which discusses the
technology surrounding this operation compared
with other companion processes such as
rolling, annealing and coating. This situation
would be understandable if there were no
problems arising from coiling operations.
However, the reality is that in many plants,
particularly older ones, the costs of yield loss,
speed restrictions, non-standard processing

and late deliveries attributable to poor coil

winding are staggering with up to ten percent of
production affected as it progresses through the
plant. Whereas tens of millions of dollars are
spent in upgrades of major processes to
achieve modest yield gains, almost no
resources are allocated to identifying, correcting
and monitoring winding problems which are
often responsible for a far greater loss of profit.
Why this situation has arisen is difficult to
explain except that winding appears to be
deceptively straightforward and there are few
measurements normally available with which to
analyse the operation apart from the winding
tension. Operator practices are often
contributory causes to winding problems and
management are reluctant to tackle such
issues. Two other explanations for the lack of
action are that the impact of the problem occurs
one or more operations downstream and, over a
period of time, an acceptance of damaged coils
and their consequences can become part of the
local culture.
The information to be presented has been
accumulated over a period of 25 years and will

hopefully provide a basis for future research on

this important area. During this time a
simulation model for calculating the internal
stresses in a wound coil was developed and
has been used to explore the characteristics of
the process and to investigate optimum coil
winding strategies. Subsequent sections of this
paper will explain the application of this model to
solving several common winding problems and
provide a novel set of dimensionless
parameters which simplify the task of designing
an optimum winding strategy. The most
frequent types of winding problems and their
causes are also discussed.

a) Staggered Wrap Coil

Discussion of Coil Winding Principles

Anyone who has tried to wind a streamer of

paper tape from a free ribbon of material into a
tight wound coil will have discovered that it
requires a reasonable degree of dexterity.
Usually the sides of the coil are uneven and the
coil does not behave as a solid cylinder unless
the outer wrap is pulled tight enough to cause
interwrap slipping which eventually results in a
tightening of the coil wraps from the coil bore to
the outer periphery. If the wraps are staggered
when the coil is tight then it is difficult to push
them back into alignment without damaging the
wrap edges.
The same issues discussed above in relation
to a paper tape streamer also apply to metal
strip coils. That is, coils should have straight
sides and should behave as an integral, solid
body while being handled for finishing
operations. If inter-wrap slippage occurs during
winding then scratching and surface damage
often occur and there is a high probability of
transverse movement of some wraps. The latter
phenomenon is usually referred to as
telescoping or dishing, depending upon the
particular form of the resulting sidewall profile.
Several examples are shown in Fig.1.

b) Dished Coil

c) Bore Stagger Coil

Fig. 1 Typical Examples of the Consequences of Interwrap
Slippage

Table 1 Nominal Coil Winding Conditions

Parameter

Units

Value

Thickness

mm

0.2

Width

mm

1 000

20.0

Youngs Modulus of base strip

GPa

207

Hardcore length (wall thickness)

(mm)

15

Hardcore multiplier

(-)

2.0

Surface roughness

0.4

MPa -1

0.3

Surface initial approach distance

1.4

Mandrel diameter

mm

400

Maximum pressure supported by

mandrel surface

MPa

1.56

Mandrel friction coefficient

on sliding surfaces

(-)

0.10

Mass of coil

Surface compressibility

An interesting plot of the lowest slip ratio within

the coil and the corresponding critical wrap
location during winding is presented in Fig. 2 for
the nominal coiling conditions defined in Table 1.

Slip Ratio
Slip Location

NOMINAL TINPLATE COILING CONDITIONS

7
6

5
4
4
3
3
2

1
0

Critical Wrap Location (mm)

Minimum Slip Ratio (-)

In its more extreme form telescoping can

present a significant danger to floor operators.
The likelihood of this occurring increases as the
coil diameter increases so that the trend
towards bigger coils may lead to a growth in the
incidence of coil winding problems. Interwrap
slippage occurs if the torque applied to the coil
by the tension on the outer wrap cannot be
transmitted from wrap to wrap all the way to the
coil bore. The torque transmission requires that
the radial force between wraps, multiplied by the
friction coefficient, is greater than the tension
torque divided by the wrap radius. A term
referred to as the slip ratio is defined as the
ratio of the maximum tension torque which can
be transmitted without slipping to the actual
tension torque. The slip ratio must be greater
than 1.0 for each wrap in a coil to avoid
interwrap slipping.

0
0.1

10

100

1000

Coil Wall Thickness During Rolling (mm)

Fig. 2 - Interwrap Slip Characteristics During Winding

The left hand axis is the lowest slip ratio and the
location of the wrap most likely to slip is plotted
against the right hand axis. Once the coil has
reached the point where the high tension on the
head end was removed the critical wrap
becomes the one adjacent to the bore. Note
however that since the slip ratio is well above
unity there is little chance of interwrap slip
occurring for this particular case.
During acceleration and deceleration additional
torques are imposed on the coil by the inertia
forces. At the beginning of a coil, these are
small, so their effect on interwrap slippage is
small. During deceleration, the inertia forces are
significant however they tend to counteract the
tension torque so slippage is unlikely during
deceleration. If rapid speed changes occur
during winding, as may be introduced for
thickness control corrections at the entry or exit
of a tandem rolling mill, then these can lead to
interwrap slippage and the loosening of wraps
or telescoping in extreme cases.
Coils wound with too low a tension may exhibit
excessive deflections when handled, leading to
scratching and, in an extreme situation, may
collapse under their own weight so that a
mandrel cannot be inserted in the eye of the
coil. Coils affected by this so-called soft
collapse condition will then need to be
scrapped or recovered by extra processing.
Coils may also collapse if the winding tension
strategy is inappropriate. For example, if a
tinplate coil is wound with a constant high
tension then it may develop an elastic instability
near the bore which will eventually propagate
right through the coil wall. The end result of this
form of tight centre collapse is a coil which
can appear similar to a coil which has suffered
collapse due to winding with too low a tension.
(See Fig.3).

a)

Soft collapse

b)

Tight Centre Collapse

Fig. 3 - Examples of Collapsed Coils

Another issue which arises in coil winding is

the interaction between consecutive processing
operations. If a coil is wound on one unit with a
certain tension strategy and unwound at the
next operation with a markedly different tension
then there is a significant risk that strip surface
marking will occur. On the one hand, if the
uncoiling tension is much lower than the original
winding tension, then there will be a region of
interwrap creep where the outer wrap leaves
the coil and the tension undergoes a transition
from the winding tension to the unwinding
tension. The relative slip between the two outer
wraps in the creep region can lead to surface
scratching. Alternatively, if the unwinding tension
is higher than the winding tension then interwrap
slip can occur in the body of the coil with
consequent scratching, dishing or telescoping
as discussed previously. Unfortunately there are
processing requirements on individual units

which may be incompatible with meeting the

condition that the winding and unwinding
tensions are matched. Examples of typical
processing requirements are:
Cold mill entry: a high tension can be
beneficial to rolling on the first stand.
Cold mill exit: a high tension aids flatness
measurement and control and reduces the
incidence of soft coil collapse. It also
reduces the risk of skidding or rollgap
instability in the adjacent rolling stand.
Annealing: low interwrap pressures are
necessary to prevent sticking of adjacent
wraps at the high temperatures occurring
during the heating cycle. In general, low
winding tensions produce low interwrap
pressures.
Temper rolling: high uncoiling tensions are
beneficial for optimising strip flatness and
minimising sticker damage. They also
reduce roll forces to acceptable levels on
thinner products. For many products,
primarily those which fall into the thick and
wide category, the achievable tension levels
are constrained by the capability of the
coiling or uncoiling equipment.
Metal coating exit: The tensions need to be
high enough to prevent interwrap slippage,
which is more critical when the strip is oiled
and the interwrap friction coefficient is low.
The tensions must not be so high as to
cause longitudinal wrinkling, an issue for thin
strip and foil operations. On some units an
ironing roll is necessary to avoid wrinkling
and to keep air from being trapped between
wraps.
Mandrel Characteristics: If the mandrel
design is such that it limits the maximum
stress on its components by allowing the
mandrel diameter to shrink during winding,
then care should be taken to ensure that the
shrinkage is minimised by suitable tension
strategy
design.
Mandrel
shrinkage
increases the likelihood of coil collapse and
telescoping significantly by creating regions
of low radial pressure and increased
tangential stress compression. Once the
regions of low radial pressure are created,
they lurk in the coil ready to create dishing or
telescoping problems later in the coil
winding or during unwinding at the next
process unit.

Strip Characteristics: The strip parameters

which influence the winding behavior are
thickness, width, hardness, Youngs
modulus and surface texture. For a given
material, the thickness and surface texture
are the most significant because they effect
the interwrap compressibility in the radial
direction. Smoother strip is more prone to
coil collapse and higher radial stresses,
leading to an increased risk of sticking
during batch annealing. (A study of
collapsed coils some years ago revealed
that the average surface roughness of
collapsed coils was 67 percent lower than
that of normal uncollapsed coils.)
Clearly the winding tensions need to reside in a
region which satisfies the constraints described
above and are within the capability of the coiling
equipment.
Presentation Defects and Common Causes

A summary of common coil presentation

defects and their most likely causes is provided
in Table 2 (next page). The consequence of
having non-flat coil faces is that the risk of
handling damage from crane transport or
placing the coils bore vertical is increased
enormously with consequent non-standard
processing costs and possible yield loss. The
thinner the strip the greater is the risk of serious
damage. Once a sidewall irregularity is created,
it has the potential to aggravate processing at
every downstream process stage until it is
removed. For example, if a sinusoidal sidewall,
or sinwall is caused by an instability in
recoiling at a pickle line then the defect may be
still observable after temper rolling.
In the authors experience, many of the
presentation problems stem from inadequate
attention to mechanical maintenance and
design. Common equipment items affected are
mandrels, steering systems, process rolls and
belt wrappers. The tight alignment specifications
needed for good tracking of material are often
not appreciated with unfortunate consequences.
The outboard bearings on rolling mill mandrels
are often misaligned or insufficiently rigid to
perform their function satisfactorily.
Coil collapse is normally controlled by tension
strategy and head end thickness profiles.
However, if mandrels become damaged or are
not lubricated correctly then the incidence of
collapse can increase. A particularly important

aspect of mandrel maintenance is the

prevention of gaps or flat spots being created at
the mandrel surface in contact with the strip as
this allows the compressive tangential stresses
at the coil bore to buckle adjacent wraps and
subsequently propagate the collapse through
the entire coil wall. A measure of the relative
importance of the parameters which affect high
tension collapse can be obtained from the
elastic buckling criterion for a flat rectangular
beam of length l and thickness h subjected to
a compressive stress. The likelihood of buckling
l2
may be shown to be proportional to
where
Eh 2
E s is the material Youngs modulus. The
situation is a little more complicated when the
strip has some curvature (See Chen and Wang
[1]) however the dependence of the critical
tangential buckling stress on the thickness
squared explains why the risk of collapse
increases rapidly below a certain thickness for a
given mandrel size. Yuen has suggested
expressing the collapse stability in terms of the
unsupported length Lc needed to initiate
buckling for a given compressive stress t and
wrap thickness h . The approximate relationship
proposed was:
Lc = 0. 425 h

The units of Lc , h are mm and t is in MPa.

The calculated length may then be compared
with known imperfections on the mandrel.
Measurement of Tension

When a tension force is applied to the winding

of a coil, there is a component which is needed
to bend the strip to conform to the shape of the
coil outer wrap. Depending on the particular coil
radius R, strip thickness h , width W and
material yield stress y , there may be an elastic
as well as a plastic bending component.

Table 2 - Coil Winding Defects and Their Causes

DEFECT
Staggered Wraps

Bore Stagger

Outer Stagger

Weld Stagger

Sin Walls

Bore Dip

Outer Dip

Hard Core
Offset

DESCRIPTION
Coil side position
changes from wrap to
wrap, giving coil wall
and jagged appearance.

Ineffective centre guide control system

Coil centre wraps offset

from rest of coil.

Alignment of mandrel and/or process roll; belt wrapper wear

or alignment problem; level problems on head and tail end at
rolling mill stand.

Outer wraps of coil

offset from rest of coil

Alignment of mandrel and or process unit; mill level problems

on tail end of coil rolling (possibly due to liner clearances)

Staggered wrap in
middle of coil at location
corresponding to weld

"Hook" or camber in hot rolling; asymmetry in thickness

profile or hardness arising from hot mill; mill level problems if
mill slows down to roll the weld.

Sinusoidal pattern on
the walls of coil

Steering stability problem during recoiling, usually at pickle

line for steel coils. Problem tends to be worse for thick wide
strip. Cause may be instrumentation, passline geometry,
control system design or roll alignment.

A dip in the coil wall

shortly after the start of
coiling.

Belt wrapper induced due to misalignment or wear. Can also

be linked to acceleration effects in adjacent rolling mill stand.

A dip near the outer

circumference

Mill deceleration level change due to mechanical effect in

bearings or liners of process.

The coil core, rolled with

a higher tension, is
offset from the rest of
the coil

Change in coiler alignment as tension changes from

hardcore value to body value. Possibly outboard bearing
related or mill stand chocks moving as tension changes.

Coil vertical cross

section has a barrel
shape

Can arise from the incoming coil or as a consequence of

inter-wrap slippage (ie telescoping). Tension strategy and
mandrel characteristics are critical. Larger diameter coils are
more vulnerable to slippage towards the end of winding if
the body tension is not gradually reduced to maintain a
constant torque. If elastic sleeves in use, excessive tension
may cause sleeves to be extruded as mandrel shrinks.
Body tension too low. Dropped coil. Excessive coil
lubrication.

Coil Barrel
Dishing

Low Tension
Coil Collapse

High Tension Coil

Collapse

COMMON CAUSES

Non-circular, oval
shaped, bore
Non-circular, kinked
bore which may
eventually become oval
if collapse propagates
to outer wraps of coil.

Winding tension strategy, excessive mandrel collapse, poor

flatness, (especially if manifest),smoother strip, excess
carry over, mandrel imperfections, strip thickness profile, roll
alignment, strip too thin on head end. Mandrel hydraulic
pressure may need to be varied as coil is rolled. If coil is
dropped, buckle may occur at lowest point in bore.

The elastic component is recovered when the

coil is unwound however this is not true of the
plastic component which is reflected in a
change in strip thickness, width and length. This
means that the effective tension in the strip in
the coiled state is less than the externally
applied tension.
The measurement of winding tension force on
many processes is achieved by an indirect
inference from the mandrel motor parameters
rather than from a direct tensiometer
measurement. Often this involves measuring
the motor armature current I A and relying on
the motor calibration. This requires that the
motor field is adjusted such that the motor emf
is proportional to strip speed V . In this case the
tension force of the coiled strip is given by the
equations provided by Goodridge [2]:

Finally, it is important to note that even if a

direct tension measurement is available, there
could be additional bending losses if the strip
passes over a deflector roll between the
tensiometer and the coiler such that plastic
bending occurs.
Coil Winding Simulation Model Overview

The objective of a coil winding algorithm is to

predict the axisymmetric radial and tangential
stress distributions at all interior points of a coil
in each stage of winding. At any particular
instance during the coil winding process, these
distributions are only a function of coil radius
(see Fig. 4).

Coil Radius
R

t r

T f = kt I A T fI T fb
h2 R 2
T fb = yW

L1 3E s
J
V 2h
T fI = R2 V&
,
R
2 R 2
where k t is the conversion factor from current
to tension force including the effect of losses,
T fb is the tension force component required to
bend the strip to the coil radius (elastic+plastic),
T fI is the inertia force term due to line speed
acceleration V& and reel deceleration due to the
changing coil radius and J R is the polar
moment of inertia of coil, mandrel and drive
system.
This approach can often lead to substantial
errors, particularly on old equipment whose
calibration has drifted. A more reliable method is
to measure the motor armature voltage V A as
well as the armature current I A and to use the
following equation:
VA I A
T fb T fI
V
where is the electrical energy conversion
efficiency from the drive motor to the mandrel
shaft.
Tf =

R0
Mandrel
Radius
Wall
Thickness
Lw

r r
r

Fig. 4 - Stress Distribution in a Wound Coil

Initial development of coil winding models took

place in Europe in the 1950s and a paper was
published by Sims and Place [3], which derived
formulae based on the theory of wire-winding of
gun barrels. This theory, which was based on
Lames stress equations for a hollow cylinder
subjected to an external pressure, related the
tangential and radial stresses on the mandrel to
the strip coiling tension and the number of
wraps. Their model was confirmed for the case
of a small number of wound wraps. This work
was subsequently extended in a thesis by
Wilkening [4], who demonstrated that the theory
of Sims and Place breaks down for more than
55 wraps, overpredicting the stresses by more
than 200 percent after 100 or so wraps.
Wilkening used an empirical correction to
correct the model and obtained a better
agreement with experimental results but he was
unable to explain the non-linear dependence on
the winding tension. An extension of Wilkenings
analysis was provided by Altmann [5] who

m m)

Initial Approach = 1.4 (Smooth Strip)

Initial Approach = 2.8 (Rough Strip)

2.5

Surface Seperation (

derived an analytical solution for the case of a

constant radial elastic modulus.
A radical change in the so-called shrink-ring
model of Sims and Place was proposed by
Wadsley [6], in which the interwrap
compressibility in the radial direction was
increased by a factor of 50 to 100 compared to
the nominal value for the base material. The
justification for this change arises from the
interaction of surfaces in which the surface
roughness is appreciable in relation to the
nominal strip thickness. By incorporating the
non-linear surface compressibility characteristics of the material into the shrink-ring model,
all of the trends observed in earlier experiments
could be reproduced.
The assumed compressibility characteristic
was one for which the change in the gap l
between adjacent wraps obeyed the law:
dl
= ( r )d r ,
l
where ( r ) is the compressibility of the rough
surface interface between wraps. The
compressibility for steel and aluminium
materials is independent of the contact stress
for the range of stresses normally found in
practice. In this special case the previous
equation can be integrated to give the normal
approach of the surfaces under load as:
l = l o e ( )
where is the average compressibility of a pair
of strip surfaces and lo is the initial unloaded
separation, approximately 3.0 to 5.0 times the
cla roughness of the strip surface. Further
discussion of this topic and the effect of
superimposed oil films is provided by
Wadsley[6].
Typical compressibility curves for two steel
materials having different surface roughnesses
are shown in Fig. 5. Whereas an uncoated steel
surface may have a compressibility of 0.03
MPa-1 for tinplate and 0.075 MPa 1 for sheet
product, galvanised material is much higher and
typically in the range 0.25 to 0.75 MPa 1 .
Comment on the measurement of these
properties is provided by Yuen [7].

COMPRESSIBILITY = 0.3 MPa-1

1.5

0.5

0
0

10

Normal Pressure (MPa)

Fig. 5 - Typical Compressibility Characteristics for Uncoated

Steel Surfaces

Although there has been substantial progress

made in the development of simulation tools to
investigate coil winding phenomena, these tools
do not appear to have been widely used to
improve winding practices on mills rolling strip
material. The potential benefits are not only in
reducing coil collapse but also to avoid the
unnecessary use of sleeves and to produce
solid coils destined for batch annealing with
lower mean tensions (to reduce interwrap
sticking).
The other important issue in simulating the
winding of coils is to represent the deformation
characteristic of the mandrel and any internal
pressure relief mechanisms it may have. An
analysis of this problem was published by
Turley [8], and forms the basis for the simulated
mandrel model. If the hydraulic pressure is
insufficient to oppose the forces generated in
the mandrel shaft by the wound coil, then the
mandrel may partially collapse with a
consequent increase in the risk of wrap
staggering, coil dishing and bore collapse. In the
authors experience, the majority of mandrels
experience significant mandrel diameter
contraction due to a combination of component
elastic deflection and internal pressure relief
mechanisms such as the hydraulic one just
described.
The model requires details of the strip surface
compressibility. These are difficult to calculate
on a theoretical basis due to the unknown effect
of any lubricant films attached to the surface.
Therefore this characteristic is best measured
by compression testing a stack of discs
punched from a sample of the rolled material.
The coil winding analysis program has been
formulated for cold rolling and finishing
operations involving coated and uncoated
materials. It is not suited to hot rolling or the

winding of very thick strip which may have

appreciable bending stiffness. The model also
assumes that no open gaps are formed
between the wraps at any point. If a gap does
occur, the analysis for that transverse section
may be incorrect, however the analysis for the
other sections will still be meaningful although
some minor errors may arise. Each slice of the
coil is assumed to have no interaction with
those on either side of it, other than via the
transverse strip tension analysis which only
affects the winding tension of the outermost
wraps.
The input data to the program includes:
Mill coiler dimensions and collapse
mechanism characteristics.
Non-linear
wrap
compressibility
characteristics.
Product dimensions and elastic properties.
Coil winding conditions for strip centreline
thickness, tension force or stress and
temperature.
Material yield stress.
Interwrap friction coefficient.

stress which can become compressive if

sufficient wraps are added. The radial
gradient in the tangential stress at the coil
bore is low at the time coil winding is
complete.
When the mandrel is collapsed, bore
wraps are released and some slippage
occurs as they unwind. This is
accompanied by a drop in the radial stress
to zero at the bore and a corresponding
increase (compressive) in the tangential
stress.
After the coil is removed from the mandrel
of a cold rolling operation it slowly cools to
a uniform temperature leading to further
growth in compressive tangential stress at
the coil bore. The radial stress also
increases however this effect is highest
further into the coil.
In general, the innermost wraps of a coil are in
a state of highest tangential compression and
experience the greatest radial pressure
gradient. The following relation holds for any
radius r :

Results are produced for each of the different

states of the coil winding process, specifically:

t = 1 + r + r
h

is the pressure gradient across

The as wound state prior to releasing the

winding tension.
After releasing the winding tension with the
coil still on the mandrel.
After removal from the mandrel.
After cooling.

The results include the radial and tangential

stress distributions throughout the coil as it is
wound and the wrap slipping parameters.
The characteristic pattern of stress buildup in
the winding of a coil is as follows:

When a wrap is added to the coil it is in

tension and the radial stress at the outer
wrap is quite low.
As more and more wraps are wound the
radial stress at the coil bore increases.
The growth in the radial stress at the coil
bore is accompanied by a corresponding
decrease in the corresponding tangential

where r
wraps.
From the above relationship it may be inferred
that if the mandrel collapses in a controlled
manner during coil winding, then the tangential
stress will become more compressive and the
radial stress on the mandrel reduced. This will
then lead to an increased risk of coil collapse
compared to the situation where the mandrel
does not collapse. There will also be
discontinuities in the mandrel pressure due to
the slip-stick frictional behaviour in the mandrel
mechanism.
A typical set of coil internal stresses for the
winding of 0.2 mm thick tinplate whose
parameters are defined in Table 1 is shown in
Fig. 6. The graphs include the tangential and
radial stress distribution at the various stages of
winding including the release of the outer wrap,
mandrel collapse and cooling to a uniform

Fig. 6 - Simulated Coil Internal Stresses at Different Stages of Winding - Nominal Case for Tinplate Material

Tangential Stress (E=414 GPa)

Tangential Stress (E=207 GPa)
Tangential Stress (E=21 GPa)
Radial Stress (E=414 GPa)
Radial Stress (E=207 GPa)
Radial Stress (E=21 GPa)

1.5

1.5

1
1
0.5
0.5
0

-0.5

Radial Bore Stress Ratio (-)...

2
Tangential Bore Stress Ratio (-)

temperature. A logarithmic horizontal axis scale

has been chosen to show the salient points of
the solution more clearly.
For the special case of a rigid mandrel it is
instructive to calculate the tangential and radial
stress at the coil bore before the mandrel is
collapsed. This calculation was performed for
290 permutations of nominal strip thickness
(0.2-3.0mm), material Youngs modulus
(21,207,414GPa), strip roughness cla (0.22.9m) and surface compressibility (0.20.7 MPa 1 ). Other data is defined in Table 1. The
results for a dimensionless tangential and radial
stress, obtained by dividing by the nominal body
tension stress, were plotted in Fig. 7 as a
function of the equivalent, radial Youngs
modulus E * of the coil wraps.

0
0

0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Equivalent Radial Elastic Modulus E* (GPa)

Fig. 7 - Tangential and Radial Bore Stresses as a Function of

Equivalent Radial Elastic Modulus

This modulus is the value one would measure

if a stack of discs of the material were
compression tested and is defined as:

illustrates the change in radial and tangential

stress for the nominal case of a 0.2 mm tinplate
coil.

= E s l o h ,

Radial Bore Stress (MPa) ...

145

NOMINAL TINPLATE COILING CONDITIONS

RIGID MANDREL

14

140
12
135

10
Mandrel Diameter
400mm Radial Stress
500mm Radial Stress
600mm Radial Stress
400mm Tangential Stress
500mm Tangential Stress
600mm Tangential Stress

8
6

130

125

4
120

2
0

Tangential Bore Stress (MPa) ...

16

115
1

10

100

1000

10000

Wound Wrap (-)

Fig. 8 - Influence of Mandrel Diameter on Bore Stresses for a

Rigid Mandrel

Another characteristic response of coils wound

on different radius, rigid mandrels is shown in
Fig. 8. The results for the radial and tangential
bore stresses at the end of winding are shown
for nominal mandrel diameters of 400, 500 and
600 mm. These show higher radial stresses for
the larger diameter mandrels and similar
tangential stresses.
An important feature of coils wound after cold
rolling is that they tend to have a significant
temperature difference between the wraps
rolled at full speed and those rolled at thread
speed. During cooling, which may take in
excess of 24 hours, the warmer body wraps
shrink onto the cooler bore wraps and cause
significant increases in the bore stresses. Fig.9

14

12

-50
10

-100

-150
-200

Non-Cooled Tangential
10 Deg.C Tangential
50 Deg.C Tangential
90 Deg.C Tangential
Non-Cooled Radial
10 Deg.C Radial
70 Deg.C Radial
90 Deg.C Radial

-250
-300
-350

4
2

-400

0
1

10

100

1000

10000

Wrap (-)

Fig. 9 - Wound Stress Change During Cooling

The same calculation has been performed for

a number of coils having a range of equivalent
radial stiffnesses. The results have been
expressed as a sensitivity of change in stress
before and after cooling per unit degree of
temperature difference between the coil bore
and coil body. The sensitivity of the bore
tangential stress and the maximum change in
radial stress (some distance in from the bore) to
temperature difference is presented in Fig.10.
Radial Stress Temperature Sensitivity
..
(MPa/Deg.C)

where is the factor by which the Youngs

modulus of the composite coil wraps is reduced
from that of the base material. The
dimensionless stress units were chosen since
the results are essentially proportional to the
winding tension. As can be seen the results fall
into
three
separate
sets
of
results
corresponding to the three different base
materials as defined by their Youngs modulus.
The combination of strip thickness, roughness
and surface compressibility which result in a
particular equivalent radial Youngs modulus has
a minor impact on the result for a specified
material. This observation is extremely
important since it reduces the dimensionality of
the problem of designing tension strategies for a
wide range of products.

Tangential Stress Distribution

.....
(MPa)

50

Radial Stress Distribution (MPa)....

Es
,
(1 + )

0.00

0.0
Radial
Tangential

-0.02
-0.04

-0.5

-0.06

NOMINAL TINPLATE COILING CONDITIONS

-0.08

-1.0

-0.10
-0.12

-1.5

-0.14
-0.16

-2.0

-0.18
-0.20

Tangential Bore Stress Temperature

...
Sensitivity (MPa/Deg.C)

E* =

-2.5
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Equivalent Radial Elastic Modulus E* (MPa)

Fig. 10 - Cooling Stress Sensitivity as a Function of Equivalent

Radial Elastic Modulus

As the radial stiffness increases the radial

stress sensitivity increases however the
tangential sensitivity is nearly constant. Note
that this result is independent of the mandrel
since the coil is cooling after removal from the
processing unit. The occurrence of cooling
stresses makes the design of coil winding
strategies significantly more difficult for rolling
operations than for most other processes.

Influence of Mandrel Characteristics

The winding results presented in Figs.7 and 8

were for the idealised case of a rigid mandrel. In
practice the forces on the mandrel are normally
so high that the mandrel drum and the
expansion mechanism suffer significant elastic
deformations. If, as is often the case , the
mandrel expansion is driven by a hydraulic
cylinder with a defined maximum pressure
setting, then there will be a defined pressure
limit at the mandrel surface which will cause the
mandrel diameter to contract until the pressure
drops below the threshold. For a given mandrel
mechanism inclined angle , mandrel radius
R o , hydraulic cylinder area A , maximum
pressure Pm and friction coefficient , the
following expression enables the maximum
radial pressure rm at the bore to be calculated:
rm =

Pm A

4 2 RoW (tan )

The significance of the maximum collapse

pressure, also called the radial pressure limit
rm , is that this single parameter represents the
key mandrel characteristic as far as the coil
winding behaviour is concerned. If the
calculations performed previously for a rigid
mandrel are now repeated for the case of
collapsing mandrels, having rm values of 0.3,
1.6 and 3.4 MPa, quite different results are
obtained as shown in Fig. 11.
Tangential Bore Stress Ratio (-)

Rigid Mandrel
Max. Collapse Pressure: 3.4 MPa
Max. Collapse Pressure: 1.6 MPa
Max. Collapse Pressure: 0.3 MPa

2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Equivalent Radial Elastic Modulus E* (GPa)

Fig. 11 - Influence of Mandrel Characteristics on Bore Stresses.

The essential feature of the difference is that

the tangential stress at the coil bore is more
compressive and therefore the risk of tight
centre coil collapse is greater. Often the
tangential stress may now be compressive
even before the mandrel is collapsed at the
conclusion of winding the coil. Also, the radial

stress in the vicinity of the coil bore is reduced

which reduces the minimum slip ratio and this
increases the risk of telescoping.
Mandrel design constraints can limit the
maximum achievable bore radial collapse
pressure however many older mills have
severely underdesigned mandrels and suffer
both interwrap slippage and or tight centre
collapse as a result. The critical design
parameter is the mandrel collapse ratio
defined as the ratio of the maximum mandrel
collapse pressure rm to the maximum radial
pressure at the end of winding on a rigid
mandrel. Based on the results presented in Fig.
7, the following expression for the mandrel
collapse ratio may be derived:
rm
=
*
a / (E + b ) c T f*
where a, b and c are constants. If the mandrel
collapses easily, due to a low radial pressure
limit and slippage occurs early in the coil, say
after ten to thirty wraps, then the wraps may
tighten up and the remainder of the coil may be
free from further slippage but is more prone to
tight centre coil collapse. Conversely, if the
slippage happens further into the coil, then a
weak spot is created in the form of an air gap or
region of low radial pressure and this leads to
dishing when the coil wall is typically above 350
mm. Some control over the location of the point
of initial slippage could be achieve by dynamic
variation of the mandrel hydraulic relief
pressure. This is not a common practice at
present.
Another observation concerning mandrel
behaviour is that the level of friction in the
mandrel expansion mechanism can have a
significant impact on the maximum collapse
pressure and therefore upon the frequency of
coil winding problems. The lower the friction
coefficient the more mandrel shrinkage will
occur. In particular it could alter the relative
levels of dishing and coil collapse. It may also
explain some of the time dependence of winding
problem incidence.

Designing a Winding Tension Strategy

The design of a winding tension strategy can be

a complex assignment when there is conflict
between the demands of the upstream and
downstream process and the optimum winding
strategy. The design process can usually be

fh /

Tf (-)

Headend "Hardcore"
Strategy

Tailend
Strategy

Duration L

Tension Force Ratio T

Body Section

Enhanced Strategy (Wadsley)

Basic Strategy
Generic Strategy
"Hardcore"
Magnitude
M

Body
Tension
*
Tf

Radius
Ro

0
1

10

100

Coil Wall Thickness(mm)

1000

Fig. 12 - Dynamic Tension Profile Strategies

The tailend tension force is intended to

minimise the risk of telescoping by keeping the
torque on the reel constant. This is achieved by
maintaining the relationship:
Tf

Ro
, R > Ro
R

where Ro is the radius where the tailend

compensation starts.
The function of the headend tension strategy is
to prevent coil collapse and telescoping or
interwrap slippage (Cozijnsen [9], Wadsley
[10]). The typical headend tension strategy in
Fig.12 is composed of an initial step followed by
a decreasing ramp down to the body tension.
Some winding operations have the ramp section
without the initial step which is not a
recommended practice. Other forms are
possible, such as the one shown in Fig.12
proposed by Wadsley [10] however the
additional benefits of the more complex form are
normally small. When investigating the optimum
form of profile to use it was found that the ramp

section had no benefit other than to make an

orderly transition from the high tension region to
the body tension. We may therefore define the
basic simplified headend profile by two
parameters; the body tension multiplier
*
M = T fh T f and the duration L expressed in

terms of the coil wall thickness. Sometimes the

length is defined in terms of the number of
wraps however the authors have found that as
the nominal strip thickness changes the wall
thickness is more constant in the optimum
winding strategy than the number of wraps. The
headend tension adjustment is commonly
referred to as the hardcore strategy because
one of its functions is to achieve a solid coil free
from the soft collapse condition induced by
winding with too low a tension. As will be shown
later, if the optimum result is obtained from the
point of view of tight centre collapse, then
interwrap slippage and soft coil collapse is not
normally an issue unless the mandrel has an
extremely low collapse pressure rm .
The likelihood of a given coil buckling may be
inferred from the magnitude of the tangential
stress at the coil bore at the conclusion of
winding when the mandrel is collapsed.
Typically, the wrap most likely to buckle may be
5 to 10 wraps in from the coil bore. Therefore, in
designing an optimum headend hardcore
strategy, the combination of the L and M
parameters which results in the least
compressive tangential stress at the coil bore is
sought. For the idealised case of a rigid mandrel
the answer is relatively easy to find by searching
all the possible combinations. Fig. 13 shows
this result for the nominal case and reveals that
a short hardcore length and a high multiplier M
gives the optimum result.
180

RIGID MANDREL PRIOR TO MANDREL COLLAPSE

160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20

1.25

Head End
Multiplier
M

2.00
2.75

Tangential Bore Stress (MPa)

viewed as a two stage process in which the first

stage is to determine the preferred body
tension, acceptable for each of the upstream
and downstream processes and the second
stage is to design the form of dynamic tension
profile adjustment needed to ensure coil stability
(ie freedom from collapse and interwrap
slippage). Typical issues for selecting the range
of feasible body tensions were discussed
previously.
A generic dynamic tension profile strategy
normally consists of a headend component and
an optional tailend component commonly
applied to coils having a large final radius (see
Fig. 12).

65 70 75
50 55 60
35 40 45
20 25 30
15
5 10

Hard Core Length (mm)

Fig. 13 - Effect of Hardcore Strategy on Tangential Bore Stress

for a Rigid Mandrel

180

RIGID MANDREL PRIOR TO MANDREL

COLLAPSE

Tangential Bore Stress (MPa)

160

Nominal Case (L=20, M=2)

Hard Core Length L=5mm
Hard Core Length L=15mm
Multiplier M=1.5
Multiplier M=2.5
Body Tension = 35 MPa
Body Tension = 105 MPa

140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Equivalent Radial Youngs Modulus E* (GPa)

Fig. 14 - Effect of Hardcore Strategy and Body Tension on

Tangential Stress for Different Strip Materials and a Rigid
Mandrel

The tangential stress shown in Figs. 13 and 14

is that achieved at the end of winding before the
mandrel is collapsed.
The interpretation of this result is that, by prestressing the inner bore wraps for a wall
thickness of L and then lowering the tension for
the remainder of the coil, one minimises the
extent to which the winding of the body of the
coil drops the initial tension towards a condition
of greater compression after winding is
complete.
If the case of a collapsing mandrel is
considered, a different and more complex
picture emerges. Fig. 15 presents the wound
tangential bore stress for a mandrel with a
maximum collapse pressure of 3.3 MPa and
similar conditions to those of Fig. 13.
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400

1.25

Head End
Multiplier M

2.25

Tangential Bore Stress (MPa)

NON-RIGID MANDREL PRIOR TO MANDREL COLLAPSE

-450
65 70 75
50 55 60
35 40 45
20 25 30
15
10
5

Hard Core Length (mm)

Fig. 15 - Effect of Hardcore Strategy on Tangential Bore Stress

for a Controlled Collapse Mandrel

Results are presented for the nominal body

tension of 70 MPa. It should also be mentioned

that, for the nominal case, a uniform strip

thickness is assumed along the coil length. The
need to keep the hardcore strategy short and
sharp is evident. For tinplate rolling as little as
50 wraps may be adequate to achieve the
desired result. The negative impact of long
hardcore lengths is clearly shown.
The previous discussion might be interpreted
as suggesting that not much benefit is gained
from the hardcore as far as the tangential stress
is concerned. The simulation results presented
previously were for a coil with a constant
thickness along its length. This is a good
assumption for many processing operations
and for continuous rolling mills which have short
transition lengths between orders. It is not
justified for conventional batch operation cold
rolling mills where there is a significant length of
thick material on the head end of the coil. In
tinplate rolling the initial thickness may be 300
percent thicker than nominal and it may require
100m of strip to be rolled before the thickness is
close to the nominal value. There are several
consequences arising from this situation:
the winding tension stress is lowered in the
critical head end region in proportion to the
amount by which the thickness is increased.
the effect of the thickness profile changes
the tangential bore stress dependence on
the hardcore parameters in a favourable
manner as revealed in Fig. 16.
0
Tangential Bore Stress (MPa)

A set of results for different body tensions and

a range of equivalent radial elastic moduli
suggests that the optimum combination of L
and M is independent of E* (Fig. 14).

-50

NOMINAL TINPLATE COILING

CONDITIONS PRIOR TO MANDREL
COLLAPSE

-100

MANDREL A
HEADEND THICKNESS
PROFILE TENSION FORCE
STRATEGY

-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
1.25

-450

1.75

5 10 15
20 25 30
35 40 45
50 55 60
65 70
75

2.25
2.75

Head End
Multiplier M

Hard Core Length (mm)

Fig. 16a - Effect of Hardcore Strategy on Tangential Bore Stress

for a Controlled Collapse Mandrel When a Headend Thickness
Profile is Present Before Mandrel Collapse

Collapsed Tangential Bore Stress

(MPa)

0
-50

NOMINAL TINPLATE COILING CONDITION

AFTER MANDREL COLLAPSE
(RESULT FOR WRAP 13)

-100

MANDREL A HEADEND
THICKNESS PROFILE
TENSION FORCE STRATEGY

-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
1.25
1.75

-400
5 10 15
20 25 30
35 40 45
50 55 60
65 70 75

2.25
2.75

Head End
Multiplier M

Hard Core Length (mm)

Fig. 16b - Effect of Hardcore Strategy on Tangential Bore

Stress for a Controlled Collapse Mandrel When a Headend
Thickness Profile is Present After Mandrel Collapse

the thicker strip at the coil bore has a major

effect on the compressive stress that can
be supported before buckling occurs since
the dependence is on thickness squared.
by deliberately rolling a controlled amount of
thicker material at the head end of a coil an
additional avenue for coil collapse control is
introduced.
Figure 16 has two 3-D plots representing the
tangential stress before and after the mandrel is
collapsed for the case where there is an initial
headend thickness increase of 240 percent
tapering to zero after approximately 60m. This
enables a comparison to be made with the
result of Fig. 15, which was for the condition
before the mandrel was collapsed. The
preferred strategy is still to keep the duration of
the hardcore strategy short. Usually there are
practical issues which limit the minimum
hardcore wall thickness to approximately
10mm.
Three-Dimensional Effects

When a coil of strip having an appreciable

thickness profile is wound, there are several
important consequences which arise:

the diameter of the coil is greater on the mill

centreline than at the strip edges.
the transverse stress distribution in the strip
as it approaches the initial coil contact
becomes increasingly non-uniform.
the general shape of the transverse strip
tension profile is similar to the surface profile
of the coil (ie the diameter distribution).
the radial and tangential stress distribution at
the coil bore will vary across the strip width
as a result of the non-uniform winding
tension at different points across the strip
width.
if the stresses in the strip at any stage
exceed the material yield stress in plane
stress, then plastic yielding may occur. This
effect is most significant for softer materials
such as aluminium foil and temper rolled
steel.
The consequence for coil winding is that at
some point across the strip width in the coil
bore region there will be a more compressive
tangential stress which will increase the risk of
coil collapse. This risk is compounded if there is
manifest bad shape introducing buckled strip
onto the wound coil near the coil bore.
Another source of stress variation across the
strip width can arise from shape stress
variations due to poor flatness and these are
typically less than 50 MPa from the mean
stress. The influence of these flatness errors
was found to be small compared to the
thickness profile effect.
For the nominal case of rolled strip having a
thickness and width of 0.2mm and 1000mm
respectively, the buildup of the radial and
tangential stress distribution through the coil has
been calculated at different locations in the coil
for the condition existing at the end of winding
(See Fig. 17).

140

0.2
3
6
13
32
81
240
596

100
80
60

DISTANCE FROM COIL BORE (mm)

60

Radial Stress (MPa)

Tangential Stress (MPa)

70

DISTANCE FROM COIL BORE (mm)

120

40
20
0

50
40

0.2

13

32

81

240

596

30
20

-20
10
-40
0

-60
-1.5

-1

-0.5

0.5

1.5

Dimensionless Distance From Coil Centre Line (-)

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0.5

1.5

Dimensionless Distance From Coil Centre Line (-)

a) Transverse Tangential Stress Distribution

b) Transverse Radial Stress Distribution

Fig.17 - Axi-Symmetric Stress Distribution Through Wound Coil Having a 3.0 Percent Transverse Thickness Profile

The simulation results show firstly that the

thickness profile increased the difference
between the centre and edge region tangential
stresses at the bore. Another feature of this
distribution was that after approximately 10
wraps, the stress in the edge zone went to zero
due to the thickness profile effect.
Monitoring the Winding Process

The monitoring of winding operations is often

hampered by the lack of instrumentation and
reliable coil observations. Audits of coils in a
storage yard for the frequency and severity of
presentation defects is often a good starting
point. Correlating the defect frequency with
product dimensions and tension strategies may
provide guidance as to where the problem may
be originating. Ideally, the following winding
parameters should be recorded dynamically for
each coil: tension force, strip thickness,
mandrel hydraulic pressure and mandrel
expansion shaft movement. It is also extremely
useful if a slippage detector can be installed to
identify when interwrap slip is occurring. These
parameters can be used to tune a coil winding
simulation model to match what is observed
and then to iteratively search for an optimum
operating point which minimises winding
problems. If that is not satisfactory then a
redesign of the mandrel may be necessary,
usually to increase the mandrel pressure at
which collapse is initiated.
It is also worthwhile to keep track of all mandrel
maintenance and lubrication activities as it can
be the case that supposedly innocent changes
can trigger a spate of winding problems.

Benefits

Illustrations of the benefits of optimising the

winding strategies or process equipment to
minimise winding problems are:
A tandem mill rolling tinplate was experiencing
a higher than desired incidence of tight centre
coil collapse. By the single change of reducing
the hardcore length by a factor of approximately
50 percent, the frequency of collapse was
reduced by a factor of 5.
Another tinmill had extreme combinations of
telescoping and tight centre and soft coil
collapse on 10 percent of the product. These
problems were reduced by a factor of 4 by
introducing a short and sharp hardcore
strategy. In this case the mandrel maximum
collapse pressure was below 0.5 MPa and
needed to be improved by a redesign to cure the
remaining coil winding problems after the
hardcore was optimised.
Two tinmills which had optimised hardcore
strategies still had unacceptable collapse
histories until a deliberate thickening of the
headend was introduced. This did not increase
the length of out of tolerance material although
there was a small yield impact which was more
than compensated by the elimination of
collapsed coils.
A steel sheet mill operation was found to have
a plethora of mechanical issues on each of its
process operations from pickling through to the
exit of metal coating. In this case a methodical
elimination of alignment problems, steering
instabilities, worn belt wrapper equipment, loose

guide boxes and improved winding tension

strategies was needed.
A steel temper mill observed bad flatness in
the final coil that was not measured by the
shapemeter. The cause was found to be
plastic yielding in the centre section of the
coil triggered by a combination of transverse
thickness profile and an excessive body
winding tension. The defect was eliminated
by lowering the winding tension.
Each particular situation had to be investigated
individually as there is no one solution to suit all
problems.

winding on controlled collapsed mandrels.

While useful, simulation models are not perfect
and the caution of Albert Einstein should be kept
in mind: As far as the laws of mathematics
refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far
as they are certain, they dont refer to reality.
References
1.

2.

3.

Conclusions

The preceding discussion of the mysteries of

coil winding was intended to highlight the
physical phenomena which determine coiling
behaviour and the types of remedial action
which may be relevant to a particular type of
winding defect.
The interactions between
tension strategies, mandrel deformations and
internal coil stress distributions are complex and
practical problem solving is hampered by the
lack of relevant measurements.
As in most fields of process engineering, many
problems arise from poor maintenance and a
failure to appreciate the criticality of key
equipment
components
and
operating
strategies.
Simulation models have been used extensively
to gain insight into the characteristics of coil

4.

5.
6.
7.

8.
9.

10.

Chen K and Wang Z-C, ' Investigation of Buckling of Coiled

Strip under High Winding Tension', Iron and Steel, (China)
24(11), (in Chinese), pp.34-38, 1989.
Goodridge R J, 'Reel Drives for High Performance Rolling
Mills and Metal Processing', GEC-AEI Journal, Vol.35, No.1,
1968.
Sims R B and Place J A, 'The Stresses in the Reels of Cold
Reduction Mills', J. Applied Physics, Vol.4, pp 213. 1953.
Wilkening H, Doctoral Thesis 'Determination of the Radial
Coiler Loading During the Coiling of Strip', RheinischWestflischen Technischen Hochschule, Aachen, 1965.
Altmann H C, 'Formulas for Computing the Stresses in
Centre-Wound Rolls', Tappi Journal, 5(4), 1968, pp 176-179.
Wadsley A W and Edwards W J, 'Coil Winding Stresses', J.
Australian Institute of Metals, Vol.22, pp 17-27, 1977.
Yuen W Y D and Cozijnsen M, 'Optimum Tension Profiles to
Prevent Coil Collapse', SEAISI 2000 Conference Vol.2,
Perth, May 2000.
Turley J W, 'Sendzimir Controlled Collapse Winder', Iron and
Steel Engineer Vol.51, No.42, November 1974.
Cozijnsen M and Yuen W Y D, 'Stress Distributions in
Wound Coils', 2nd Biennial Australian Engineering
Mathematics Conference, Sydney, pp 117-174, 1996.
Wadsley A W and Edward W J, 'Note on Coil Winding Investigation of Tight Centre Coil Collapse', Australasian
Institute of Metals, 30th Annual Conference, Newcastle,
May
1977.

Tf

Winding tension force

Nomenclature
A

Area of mandrel expand cylinder

Ep

Youngs modulus of base strip material

Tf*,Ts *

Nominal winding tension force, stress

E*

Equivalent Youngs Modulus in the radial direction

Tfb

Bending component of tension

Strip thickness

Tf

Inertia component of tension

IA

Motor armature current

Strip speed

Polar moment of inertia of motor, mandrel and coil

VA

Motor armature voltage

lo ,l

No load, loaded separation of rough surfaces in

Strip width

contact
L

Hardcore wall thickness

LC

Critical buckling length

LW

Wall thickness

Hardcore headend tension force ratio

Pm

Maximum hydraulic pressure in mandrel expand

mechanism

Radial location of point within a coil

Coil outer radius

Material yield stress

Ro

Mandrel nominal radius

Electric energy conversion efficiency

JR

r ,t
rm

Young's Modulus ratio with respect to base material

Mandrel mechanism angle
Mandrel collapse ratio
Rough surface compressibility
Coefficient of static friction is mandrel mechanism
Radial, tangential stress
Maximum mandrel collapse pressure at coil bore