your comment is an extremely valuable contribution!
disclaimer: i don't have a relevant technical reference handy, and i'm far from an expert on the area, which is vast, and i recognize you know things i don't about it. still, i do spend a lot of time reading papers with metallurgical micrographs in them†, and i think i figured out the answer to your question many years ago, so i will explain my understanding
except for the part about grain orientation, anyway
> In every rolling mill I've been in, there is a limited amount of reduction per pass through the mill, after which the metal needs to go for thermal treatment to be annealed to remove all the cold work. Every time you anneal the material, you completely resets the elongation (internal plastic strain) and strengthening due to work hardening. If they do too much reduction in one pass or at too low of a temperature, it cracks the material and makes it weaker.
as i understand it, this is exactly right, but you say it as if it's contradictory. strain hardening increases the yield strength of metal (by making it yield). it can also change the tensile strength, but to a much smaller degree. when the metal can no longer handle stress by yielding, in particular by yielding in a way that produces further work hardening, so that the yield is distributed over the metal rather than being concentrated wherever it starts, it cracks. that's why strain hardening metal makes it more prone to cracking. in general, a given metal is more prone to cracking when you harden it, whether you harden it by cold forging, case hardening, or quenching. (peening is the exception; it inhibits crack initiation by a different method.)
the change in yield strength from cold working can be quite large, a factor of 4 or so. it doesn't change the ultimate tensile strength much (or at all in the case of your wire rope), but there are a lot of cases where what you care about is the yield strength, not the uts, because if the part yields by more than a tiny amount, it is out of tolerance and has therefore failed
(with respect to a36 steel, elongation at break, and wire rope, this is a minor detail, but it's possible to elongate it somewhat more through rolling than you can through wire-drawing. but you are certainly correct that you cannot elongate it 100×, and wire rope is mostly made by drawing, not by rolling.)
there are different kinds of heat treatment, but the most common kind for steel involves a phase transition to austenite and back, which does indeed destroy the entire grain structure of the steel, losing any potential advantage of forging, precisely as you say. i'd think this would also be mostly true for hot-forging, where steel is forged while still austenitic; the relevant grain structure for strength will be the one that the steel acquires when it leaves the austenite phase. there are other kinds of heat treatment (more commonly used with things like aluminum) that don't involve fully recrystallizing the metal, and i would expect some grain structure to survive those
probably none of that is telling you anything you don't already know, but perhaps it's a different way of thinking about the things you know that explains the apparent contradictions
as for which direction i would expect grain orientation to make things strongest in, i really have no idea at all
I'm not sure what you thought was contradictory within that quote. I thought it was reinforcing a single idea? I was pushing back on the idea that very high reduction ratios keep causing higher and higher strength. There is a pretty low limit to the amount of deformation you can make in steel and aluminum before you wreck the metal. You need to keep resetting the cold work via annealing to be able to keep forming the metal. Cold work is just done as the final pass with a very limited final dimensional reduction in rolling.
I'm not saying cold working doesn't happen, or doesn't affect strength. It certainly does. I'm pushing back on the idea that forging creates superior strength via grain flow. One of the sibling comments pointed out the MIL spec materials handbook[1] where he found some materials that do exhibit a strength dependency on grain direction. That is interesting.
That seems to be the exception rather than the rule. If you go to page 3-220 in that spec, they show 5052 Aluminum in varying degrees of cold work (H32, H34, H36, and H38), where higher degrees of cold work have higher ultimate and yield strengths, but the L vs LT directions are identical in many cases, or 1 different. That goes against the general idea that forging grain flow creates superior strength in general.
So basically what you say is agreeing with his observations ?!
If you cold forge there are some benefits (but the question would be what can actually be reliably be cold forged and be a useful object in our precise world ?).
If you hot forge and/or heat treat, most of the benefits are lost pretty fast, so it doesn’t make much difference.
As the OP seems to intuit there is probably not much real strength benefits to forging for useful objects in real use cases scenarios, the reason they are forged have to do with manufacturing processes more than anything else.
disclaimer: i don't have a relevant technical reference handy, and i'm far from an expert on the area, which is vast, and i recognize you know things i don't about it. still, i do spend a lot of time reading papers with metallurgical micrographs in them†, and i think i figured out the answer to your question many years ago, so i will explain my understanding
except for the part about grain orientation, anyway
> In every rolling mill I've been in, there is a limited amount of reduction per pass through the mill, after which the metal needs to go for thermal treatment to be annealed to remove all the cold work. Every time you anneal the material, you completely resets the elongation (internal plastic strain) and strengthening due to work hardening. If they do too much reduction in one pass or at too low of a temperature, it cracks the material and makes it weaker.
as i understand it, this is exactly right, but you say it as if it's contradictory. strain hardening increases the yield strength of metal (by making it yield). it can also change the tensile strength, but to a much smaller degree. when the metal can no longer handle stress by yielding, in particular by yielding in a way that produces further work hardening, so that the yield is distributed over the metal rather than being concentrated wherever it starts, it cracks. that's why strain hardening metal makes it more prone to cracking. in general, a given metal is more prone to cracking when you harden it, whether you harden it by cold forging, case hardening, or quenching. (peening is the exception; it inhibits crack initiation by a different method.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_hardening has an overview that talks about how this phenomenon can be either desirable or undesirable
the change in yield strength from cold working can be quite large, a factor of 4 or so. it doesn't change the ultimate tensile strength much (or at all in the case of your wire rope), but there are a lot of cases where what you care about is the yield strength, not the uts, because if the part yields by more than a tiny amount, it is out of tolerance and has therefore failed
(with respect to a36 steel, elongation at break, and wire rope, this is a minor detail, but it's possible to elongate it somewhat more through rolling than you can through wire-drawing. but you are certainly correct that you cannot elongate it 100×, and wire rope is mostly made by drawing, not by rolling.)
there are different kinds of heat treatment, but the most common kind for steel involves a phase transition to austenite and back, which does indeed destroy the entire grain structure of the steel, losing any potential advantage of forging, precisely as you say. i'd think this would also be mostly true for hot-forging, where steel is forged while still austenitic; the relevant grain structure for strength will be the one that the steel acquires when it leaves the austenite phase. there are other kinds of heat treatment (more commonly used with things like aluminum) that don't involve fully recrystallizing the metal, and i would expect some grain structure to survive those
probably none of that is telling you anything you don't already know, but perhaps it's a different way of thinking about the things you know that explains the apparent contradictions
as for which direction i would expect grain orientation to make things strongest in, i really have no idea at all
______
† last night, for example, i read https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/8/2/91/pdf and https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjspm/63/7/63_15-00089/..., but also parts of https://pure.tue.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/1584410/617544.pdf, http://www.diva-portal.se/smash/get/diva2:1352113/FULLTEXT01..., https://yadda.icm.edu.pl/baztech/element/bwmeta1.element.baz..., https://www.imerys.com/public/2022-03/Specialty-Carbons-for-..., and https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/200743982..., but i was maybe on a bit of an atypical metallurgy bender. none of these are more than marginally relevant to the questions at hand of forging, strain-hardening/work-hardening, and grain structure orientation