Fields: journal of Huddersfield student research

Available open access at: https://www.fieldsjournal.org.uk/

Investigating the performance of rail steels

Daniel Herbert Woodhead

University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, HD1 3DH

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: This study focusses on aiding the understanding of how various material
Received 18 October 2020 properties affect rolling the contact fatigue (RCF) and wear of rail steels. This
Received in revised form 15 will support the future development of RCF prediction models, and in the
February 2021 identification of rail damage mechanisms. Tensile tests were conducted on
Accepted 27 April 2021 several rail steel samples and compared to wear, and RCF data available in
literature (Burstow, 2009), to try and meet the aim of this research. The findings
from this study support the statements that hardness is a good indicator of
Keywords:
ultimate tensile strength and that steel samples from the head and foot of rails
Rolling contact fatigue have quite different yield strengths (max 24% difference). The strongest
Wear outcome of this research is data supporting claims that a ratio of the product of
Rail damage mechanisms young’s modulus squared and percentage elongation to hardness cubed
Tensile test ((E2*Pe)/H3) had a much better correlation (R2=0.98) to wear data than just
Twin disc test hardness (R2=0.89). As well as this, new ideas for characterizing Mark
Whole life rail model Burstow’s whole life rail model have been presented in this study, due to the
Material properties importance of understanding how material properties impact rolling contact
Percentage elongation fatigue and wear. It is suggested in this study that the Tγ Threshold and Tγ
Hardness Balance of a material could be calculated using ultimate tensile strength (UTS)
Yield strength and not hardness, due to findings showing a higher correlation between the
Young’s modulus number of cycles to RCF initiation and UTS (R2 = 1.0), than with hardness (R2
Ultimate tensile strength = 0.975).

Nomenclature

Symbol Definition Unit s Slip Distance m

A Contact Patch Area m^2 Tγ Creepage Force (T- Nm
Gamma)
E Young’s Modulus Pa
V Velocity m/s
H Hardness HB
v Volume of lost material m^3
k Adhesive Wear -
Coefficient. α Yaw Angle rad/
Lf Final Length m s
γx Longitudinal Creep m or
Lo Original Length m %
γy Lateral Creep m or
N Normal Contact Force N
%
Pe Percentage Elongation % ζ Algebraic Value which is -
R1 and Radius of each body m Different for each Wheel
R2 μ Coefficient of Friction -
R2 Correlation Coefficient - σ Stress Pa
ro Mean Rolling Radius m ξ Strain -

Published under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0

University of Huddersfield Press unipress.hud.ac.uk
2

INTRODUCTION over the test conditions available, as well as the

relative simplicity of manufacturing testing
Problem statement specimens at a lower cost than full scale components
Railway wheels and rails are highly susceptible to (Lewis, et al., 2017). A typical twin disc machine
damage due to the large forces acting through the utilizes two discs which are driven by independent
minute contact patch where they interact, over a motors to allow for the slip to be controlled and
high number of cycles of operation. These contact measured. A loading cell or loading arm is used to
patches can be as small as ~13mm in diameter load the upper disc against the lower disc and to
(Hernandez, 2008), meaning that understanding replicate the scaled normal force experienced at full
these forces is a fundamental piece of information scale conditions (Galas, Smejkal, Omasta, & Hartl,
that any rail engineer should consider when 2014).
ensuring the safe and economical operation of a
railway (Shebani & Iwnicki, 2016). A photograph of Currently there is much debate by researchers as to
Huddersfield railway station can be seen in Figure how to scale the full-scale conditions encountered
1. on track to twin disc scale. This has led to many
different investigations of wear and rolling contact
As time has progressed there has been an increasing fatigue (RCF) being developed using various twin
demand on the railway to support trains with higher disc rig configurations, with no standard
axle load capabilities, higher velocities and support methodology being agreed upon. This is highly
increased rail traffic. These influential factors mean problematic as the results from each of the different
that the rail industry must ensure that a safe and tests cannot be compared (Lewis, et al., 2017). Some
maintainable track infrastructure is in place, one scholars will use an energy-based approach to
that is tightly monitored to avoid catastrophic scaling, following the British Rail Research or
failure due to degradation on the track (Shebani & University of Sheffield model, which both use the T-
Iwnicki, 2016). Gamma value developed by British Rail Research.
They may alternatively use the KTH model
developed by the Royal Institute of Technology,
which is a non-energy-based approach that follows
Archard’s theory (Quost, et al., 2010). These
theories will be expanded upon in later sections of
this article.

Tensile testing
Tensile testing is used in the rail industry as a
means of measuring rail steel’s mechanical
properties. This is done by stretching a material to
destruction and measuring the extension. Tensile
testing can be used to find material properties for
use in finite element analysis, which is commonly
Figure 1: A photograph of Huddersfield railway station. used in the railway to solve many rail problems
(Bandula-Heva & Dhanasekar, 2011). Tensile tests
are used to create stress-strain graphs for various
Literature review rail steel materials, as they are required to
The foundation of this study contains a concise understand the behavior of the rail head under
literature review of research in the field of rail steel wheel loading (Bandula-Heva & Dhanasekar, 2011).
testing, as well as the current industry
measurement standards. Hardness testing
Hardness is a highly considered parameter when
Twin disc testing selecting a rail steel for use on a section of track.
Twin disc testing is commonly used in the rail This is highlighted by the fact that most, if not all,
industry to test the damage function resistance of rail steels include their hardness value in their
various rail steels, whilst trying to best simulate the name, e.g., R260 grade steel has a Brinell hardness
conditions encountered on track. These tests are of 260HB. To this end, hardness testing has become
preferrable due to the high level of control they offer an instrumental part of predicting the damage of
 3

rail steels, as highlighted in Archard’s theory, which Improving the understanding of the links between
will be discussed in a future section of this article. material/mechanical properties to damage
Hardness testing is important, as it can give insight functions should help to improve the understanding
into the effects of damage mechanisms on rail steels. of rail steel performance. The current
For example, in the paper entitled “Investigation of understanding in the rail industry is that higher
the influence of rail hardness on the wear of rail and hardness results in better wear resistance
wheel materials under dry conditions (ICRI wear properties, however in some cases such as HP335
mapping project),” wear rate is plotted against a grade steel, the grade performs much better than
variety of rail steels with varying hardness values. steels of similar hardness (British Steel, 2020). This
Furthermore, hardness mapping is conducted to was shown in tests conducted by Network rail who
view the hardness values at different depths from recorded damage function data at different track
the surface of different rail specimens, to see if this sites for comparison to standard grade steels
affects wear. This showed some of the general (SUSTRAIL, n.d.). This anomaly shows a necessity
trends of wear and hardness but gave little for further understanding which other material
explanation as to why this happens. It is highlighted properties may attribute to increased wear and RCF
in this paper that a lack of material knowledge could resistance, which is what this paper will attempt to
have contributed to this conclusion, amongst other do.
potential issues highlighted (Lewis, et al., 2019).
Measurement Standards
Current research Rail steels must be rigorously tested before use on
Many papers have attempted to use a combination track which is the reason why standards such as the
of twin disc testing, tensile testing and hardness EN13674-1 2017 exist. This standard contains only
testing to develop or verify damage function models nine pearlitic steels with varying hardness values
for rail steels. A good example of twin disc testing (Bevan, Jaiswal, Smith , & Cabral, 2018). BS11 was
can be seen in a paper written by Martin Hiensch, the very first British standard issued to rail steel
entitled ‘Rolling contact fatigue: damage function manufacturers that specified a minimum tensile
development from two-disc test data.’ In this paper, strength requirement of 618 N mm-2. In 1985 this
on-track observations are used to test R220 grade was revised to 710 N mm-2 for standard grade steels
steel under scaled conditions representative of the and to 880 N mm-2 for wear resistive grades (Yates,
full-scale conditions. The findings from the twin 1996). It is curious that these material properties are
disc tests conducted are then compared to Mark mentioned in the standards but are not yet included
Burstow’s whole life rail model and seem to help in any wear or RCF models to the authors
verify it, thus showing the importance of rail steel knowledge. They are important parameters that are
testing in verifying damage function models highlighted by the standards, and hence may have
(Hiensch & Burgelman, 2018). some impact on the damage function resistance of a
rail steel. These standards also help to show why
Tensile testing has recently been used by Mark tensile testing has become an instrumental part of
Burstow to attempt to characterize his whole life rail steel testing.
rail model using material properties (Burstow,
2009). The necessity for linking material properties Research aim
with damage mechanisms is highlighted by the lack This research will attempt to offer a better
of inclusion of material properties in all major understanding of the link between material
damage function models. Archard’s theory includes properties and the damage mechanisms of rails.
only hardness in its calculation and Tγ model Improving the understanding of rail steel
includes no material properties. To the authors performance will have a large benefit to the rail
knowledge only Burstow has attempted to make the industry as it can be applied to their existing
link between damage mechanisms and other infrastructure to help optimise cost savings through
material properties (Burstow, 2009). This is a good maintenance. If the rail industry understands which
step into the right direction with regards to steels are most resistant to wear and rolling contact
improving the link between material properties and fatigue (RCF), and why, then they can then optimise
damage mechanisms, as it has long been thought their infrastructure and planned maintenance, as
that hardness has the biggest impact on damage well as save money by planning where to utilize
mechanisms, which is shown in models such as premium steels more effectively.
Archard’s wear model.
4

BACKGROUND RESEARCH creepages can be found using Kalker’s theory,

explained below.
As well as a literature review this study is
comprised of concise background knowledge If a wheel that is assumed frictionless is freely
regarding damage mechanisms of railway rails, as moving down a track or especially around a curve,
well as relevant material properties, to ensure that then due to the conicity and the different rolling
the reader has the necessary underlying radii of each body (R1 and R2), a longitudinal creep
understanding of the parameters and tests included force is created. Longitudinal creepage (γx) at the
in this study. contact patch is also dictated by the angular speed
of the wheelset (ω) and linear velocity (V):
Wheel-rail contact
To begin to understand damage mechanisms it is Rω − V
imperative to first grasp the fundamentals of what γx =
V
is happening at the wheel-rail interface and the (1)
various forces, which act over many cycles of
operation. These forces can occur at contact patches In quasi- static conditions, the lateral creepage (γy)
as small as 20 pence coins and can cause large is the yaw angle (α) common between two wheels
stresses of approximately 3000 MPa to act between (Iwnicki, 2006):
the wheel and rail (Hernandez, 2008). These
stresses are responsible for plastic flow, wear, and γy = − α
fatigue damage, which are commonly referred to as (2)
damage mechanisms (Molyneux-Berry, Davis, &
Bevan, 2014). In quasi-static conditions the rail speed (V) is zero
and can be simplified. Spin creepage (γs) can be
Normal contact
found using the below equation (Iwnicki, 2006):
Normal contact describes the stresses, pressures
and deformations that occur when elastic and
spherical bodies interact with each other in γs = sin ζ /ro
frictionless contact (Hertz, 1881/1896). The (3)
contact patches between the two contacting bodies
tend to be elliptical (Wang & Chung, 2013) and can ζ is an algebraic value which is different for each
be found using either finite element analysis (FEA) wheel. This expression shows spin creepage is more
or Hertzian contact theory. These methods can be prevalent when flange contact occurs and is a larger
used to find the stresses acting at the contact patch value on smaller radii wheels (Iwnicki, 2006). The
between a railway wheel and rail. various creepages outlined can be seen in Figure 2.

Tangential contact
The contact patch between rail and wheel is where
the tangential forces will act. These forces include
the traction and braking forces, as well as guiding
and parasitic forces (Iwnicki, 2006). These parasitic
forces do not contribute to the desired motion of the
train. Due to the previously discussed elasticity that
occurs between a wheel and a rail, caused by the
normal contact force, some points at the contact
patch may slip while other points may stick when
the two bodies move relative to each other. This slip
is referred to as creepage and this creepage is
responsible for generating tangential creep forces
and spin moments (ZaaZaa & Schwab, 2009).
Understanding the various creepages is important
as it plays a large part in wear at the wheel-rail
Figure 2: An illustration of the various creepages acting
interface, especially in the Tγ model. These at the wheel-rail contact patch.
 5

Damage mechanisms 2010). The University of Sheffield model concludes

There are many mechanisms that can cause damage the same as the BRR model, that wear is more
to railway wheels and tracks, each of which are dominant at higher Tγ values. It is important to
prevalent under different track conditions. note that neither wear model includes any material
Understanding these mechanisms is critical to help properties in its determination of wear.
extend the life expectancy of tracks and wheels.
RCF prediction modelling
Wear Rolling-contact fatigue (RCF) is defined as a failure
Wear is defined as the removal of material from a or material removal driven by crack propagation
solid surface by mechanical action (Shebani & caused by the near-surface alternating stress field
Iwnicki, 2016). The wear rate of a rail or wheel is a (Akchurin, 2017). It is important to understand the
critical parameter to understand for planning conditions that can cause RCF and various models
maintenance as it can be used to predict the life have attempted to do this.
expectancy of the part in question.
Whole life rail model
Archard’s theory Investigating RCF damage to rails or wheels can be
A current method of predicting wear rate using done using the whole life rail model, developed by
material properties is Archard’s theory, which Mark Burstow (Burstow, 2009). According to the
suggests that the wear volume (v) is proportional to model, fatigue damage is dependent on the frictional
the product of normal contact force (N) and slip energy at the rail contact patch (Tγ). This can be
distance (s) (Martins, 2001). The slip distance is the best seen in Figure 3, which shows a whole life rail
creepage expressed in terms of distance. It also model damage function graph. This model can be
suggests that wear volume is inversely proportional used to show the conditions that create both wear
to the hardness of a material (H). The equation is as and RCF. Whilst developed, and strictly only valid,
follows, where ‘k’ is an adhesive wear coefficient: for R260 grade steel, this graph has been further
characterized by Burstow using various material
kNs properties.
v=
H
(4)
T-gamma models
Wear number (Tγ) was originally introduced by
British Rail Research (Braghin et al., 2006) in their
BRR wear model. Tγ is physically just the energy
dissipated from the train’s wheels to the rail
through the wheel rail interface, when in slip. It can
also be thought of as the contact patch frictional
energy (Burstow, 2012). The lateral and
longitudinal creep forces (Tx and Ty) of the train and
the lateral and longitudinal creepages (γx and γy)
Figure 3: An example of a whole life rail model graph
can be used to find Tγ:
(Burstow, 2009).
Tγ = Tx γx + Ty γy
(5) Shakedown theory
Shakedown theory attempts to directly show the
These Tγ values can then be used in wear functions links between material properties and RCF. It does
and compared to wear regimes to find the severity this by correlating critical shear stress, normal
of wear (Network Rail, 2012). contact stress and the tractional coefficient at the
contact patch. It is expected from this method that
The University of Sheffield has also developed a RCF will occur above the shakedown limit
model that uses Tγ. They propose that Tγ/A, ‘A’ (Muhamedsalih, Stow, & Bevan, 2018). This method
being the contact patch area, would be a better however does not account for increasing wear rate,
representation of what happens at the wheel rail which reduces and removes the RCF crack
interface (Pombo, Ambrosio, Pereira, & others, propagation.
6

Material properties compression or tension. It is the highest stress a

It is important to understand material properties material can undergo and its maximum resistance
and how they may link to the damage mechanisms. to fracture (CORROSIONPEDIA, 2018).
This is the basis of choosing the correct materials
for use on rails and railway wheels. Young’s modulus
Youngs modulus (E) describes the elastic properties
Material microstructure of a solid under tension and compression in one
To understand the material properties of typical rail direction. It is a measure of a materials ability to
steels, it is important to see the material withstand changes in length caused by tension and
microstructure. The microstructure of rail steels compression (Britannica, N/A). Mathematically it is
commonly will consist fully of pearlite or pearlitic the longitudinal stress (σ) divided by the strain (ξ):
steel, as seen in Figure 4. Pearlite is formed during
a slow cooling process that is characterized by the σ
joint arrangement of thin layers of ferrite and E =
ξ
cementite (D.Raabe, N/A). It is these thin layers of (6)
cementite and small inter-lamellar spacings that
give rail steels such high wear resistive properties Many authors believe that the fracture strain of a
compared to other steels. material is related to wear of a solid body. The
fracture strain being dependent on the ratio of
hardness (H) to young’s modulus (E). The higher
this ratio and with a moderately high hardness, the
better wear resistance a material is said to have
(Wangyang, Cheng, Lukitsch, Weiner, & Lev,
2004).

Yield strength
Yield strength is the point at which a material
enters the plastic deformation region. Where the
point of yield is not easily defined, a proof stress is
sometimes taken instead, this is commonly where
0.2 percent plastic deformation occurs (Wikipedia,
2020).

Percentage elongation
Figure 4: An illustration heavily inspired by (Tomoya, Percentage elongation (Pe) is the amount of plastic
Shigeru, & Hamanda , 2013), on the microstructure of a
typical rail steel. and elastic deformation that can occur in a material
up to the point of fracture. To calculate this
parameter, the original length (Lo) is compared to
Hardness the final length (Lf), giving the following equation:
Hardness is defined as a materials ability to resist
plastic deformation (Peter, 2007). It is very typical Lf − Lo
Pe (%) = × 100
of rail steels to include a value of Brinell hardness in Lo
their name, for example R200 and R260b steel. This (7)
shows that hardness is highly considered when
selecting a material for rails and wheels. This fits in Percentage elongation is useful for finding the
with Archard’s theory as harder materials would ductility of a material and can be used to give a
implicitly have a better wear resistance. Pearlitic general sense of malleability and toughness
rail steels also become much harder under work properties (CORROSIONPEDIA, 2018).
hardening conditions which is why they are favored
for their wear resistive properties. TESTING METHODOLOGY

Ultimate tensile strength The key to acquiring the mechanical, RCF and wear
Ultimate tensile strength (UTS) is defined as the properties of several steel specimens was to conduct
maximum stress a material can undergo when in a tensile test and a twin disc test. These parameters
 7

were then going to be compared to each other to Hardness testing

show any links between them. Hardness testing was not conducted for this project
and instead values of hardness for each steel sample
Tensile testing were taken from existing IRR hardness data.
Tensile tests were conducted at the Institute of
Railway Research (IRR) using an Instron 8874 RESULTS ANALYSIS
tensile machine, seen in Figure 5, to stretch fourteen
rail steel samples, seven from the head of a rail and The main purpose of this study is the post-
seven from the foot, to destruction. The young’s processing and analysis of existing and new damage
modulus, ultimate tensile strength, yield strength function data, as well as material property data.
and percentage elongation of each were calculated.
Tensile results
From the tensile tests conducted at the IRR, the
data was post-processed to give a stress-strain
graph for each rail steel specimen. These graphs
were used to find the various material properties
stated in the methodology.

Ultimate tensile strength vs hardness

Comparing ultimate tensile strength and hardness
shows a strong linear correlation coefficient of 0.91
between the two parameters, as can be seen in
Figure 7.

Figure 5: A photograph of the Instron 8874 tensile

testing machine used in this study.

Twin disc testing

Due to the Covid-19 outbreak, the intended twin
disc test for this project was not conducted, however
various documents and input parameters have been
verified for a potential future test using the IRR’s
twin disc rig, seen in Figure 6. Due to these
circumstances, it was necessary to compare the
tensile data found against the existing wear and
RCF data gathered by Burstow and added to by the Figure 7: A graph of UTS vs hardness.
IRR.

Yield strength vs hardness

It was then tested to see if a linear correlation
existed between yield strength and hardness, as
shown in Figure 8. The data found only shows a
0.63 correlation coefficient, which suggests that
hardness tests may not be a good measure of yield
strength.

Figure 6: A photograph of the twin disc testing machine

at the IRR.
8

from the test conducted in this article, significant

conclusions were drawn on the link between
material properties and wear.

Hardness
The logical first step to improving upon the
existing understanding of the effects of material
properties on wear was to plot wear rate vs
hardness. This is because in many existing wear
models, such as Archard’s, hardness is the only
material property used in the wear rates
formulation.

Figure 8: A graph of yield strength vs hardness.

Rail head vs rail foot

The last conclusion to be drawn from the isolated
tensile test was that generally, the young’s modulus
of a material at the head of a rail and the foot of a
rail are similar (<5% percentage difference). The
UTS at the head and foot of the different rail
materials, however, can be seen to have significant
differences of above five percent. The most
significant discrepancy in material properties at the Figure 10: A graph of wear rate vs hardness.
head and foot of the rail is apparent when analysing
the yield strength of the various samples, with most
being well over ten percent different (max 24% The correlation found in Figure 10, between wear
different). This can be seen in Figure 9. These rate and hardness, was found to be strong, negative,
discrepancies will be discussed further in this and linear (R2 = 0.89), however it was believed this
project. could be improved upon.

Hardness/ young’s modulus

To test whether the previously mentioned theory of
a ratio of hardness (H) to young’s modulus (E) is
viable, graphs were plotted of H/E, H/E2 and
H3/E2 using the tensile data found, and Burstow’s
data.

Figure 9: A bar chart of the percentage differences

between material properties at the head and foot of a
rail.

Wear results
Using existing twin disc data gathered by Burstow Figure 11: A graph of wear rate vs H/E & H/E2.
and added to by the IRR, as well as the tensile data
 9

Figure 11 shows that neither the ratio of H/E (R2= Young’s modulus/ hardness
0.88) or H/E2 (R2= 0.82) has a better correlation to After it was observed that the correlation coefficient
wear data than hardness (R2= 0.89). H/E is a ratio was reduced in the H/E graphs, the ratio of E/H
that characterizes a material’s resistance to elastic was plotted, to see if it would have any improvement
deformation. A ratio of H/E2 is expected to correlate in the correlation to the wear data. This was
better with abrasive and erosive wear as it can expected to increase the correlation more than H/E
indicate a material’s resistance to permanent as Archard’s theory includes hardness in the
damage (Surzhenhov, 2016), however as shown in denominator of its formula.
Figure 11 this is not the case. For the sake of testing
the entire theory, the parameter of H3/E2 will be
analysed. This parameter allows for the estimation
of the dissipation of energy at plastic deformation
during load within the materials endurance
(Surzhenhov, 2016).

Figure 13: A graph of wear rate vs E/H & E2/H3.

Unlike previously, the correlation of the E/H (R2=

0.92) and E2/H3 (R2= 0.94) ratios to wear rate has
Figure 12: A graph of wear rate vs hardness & H3/E2
improved, as can be seen in Figure 13 as compared
to Figure 10. Through a trial-and-error method and
an understanding of other material properties, the
Figure 12 shows that the ratio of H3/E2 (R2 = 0.82)
percentage elongation (Pe) of each material will
also shows no greater correlation to wear data than
now be applied to the previous ratio ((E2*Pe)/H3) to
hardness, meaning the addition of the young’s
see if it yields better correlation to the wear data.
modulus may have no impact on the wear, however
both Figure 11 and Figure 12 still show a strong
linear correlation between the ratio and wear rate,
hinting that it could. A high H/E, in the theory
mentioned, should be beneficial to wear resistance,
which is supported in each of the graphs as they all
have strong correlations. Theoretically, a high H/E
ratio with a moderately high hardness, has a higher
elastic strain to fracture, meaning good toughness
properties. However, this could only be true for
surfaces with pre-existing flaws or cracks, as
generally tougher and more elastic materials (low
E) are able to resist abrasive wear well. With flaws
present, a stiffer (higher E) material surface could
resist the forces that open cracks better (Bhusan,
Figure 14: A graph of wear rate vs hardness & E2*Pe/H3.
2001). This could be one of the reasons that the
correlation coefficient decreases, as some new
evidence suggests that a lower young’s modulus
As can be seen in Figure 14, the correlation
value will have more wear resistance than one with
coefficient of the (E2*Pe)/H3 ratio to wear data is
similar hardness but higher young’s modulus.
0.98, which is much higher than the 0.89 produced
by plotting wear versus hardness (Figure 10). This
10

significant increase in the correlation coefficient supplement the project, post-processing of RCF
may suggest a better model for plotting against data, produced by Burstow, was conducted to help
wear data and a greater understanding of how more characterize the whole life rail model (WLRM)
material properties link to wear. This model agrees graph using material properties.
with Archard’s theory, that the inverse of hardness
is proportional to wear rate, which partially justifies An example of Burstow’s characterization of a
why the correlation coefficient is better when the WLRM graph can be seen in Figure 15, along with
hardness is included on the bottom of the ratio in Figure 16, which uses data produced by Burstow to
the model discussed in this article. show the estimated WLRM function for different
rail steels.
Figure 14 suggests that a material with a high
hardness, a low young’s modulus, and low
percentage elongation, will have better wear
resistive properties. It has been suggested in
previous papers that the E/H ratio is a valid
parameter to use for estimating the wear rate of
materials (Bhusan, 2001). The percentage
elongation was included due to a relationship found
in a publication on the effects of heat treatment on
mechanical properties and the study of the wear
behavior of dual-phase steels using air jet erosion
testing, written by Sunil Kumar Rajput and other
authors. This paper shows a correlation that lower Figure 15: A graph of a characterized whole life rail
percentage elongation generally means lower wear model of R260 using theories by (Burstow, 2009).
loss. As percentage elongation is the amount of
plastic and elastic deformation a material can take
before fracturing, it would make sense to include it
on the top of the ratio (E2 /H3). H3 /E2 allows the
estimation of the dissipation of energy at plastic
deformation during loading that a material can
endure. With this definition, it is evident as to why
the percentage elongation should also be included,
as both parameters attempt to measure the plastic
deformation to fracture.

Creating a wear rate model Figure 16: A graph of the various whole life rail
From the near perfect linear relationship shown estimated model properties of several rail steels, created
between (E2*Pe)/H3 and the wear data from using data by (Burstow, 2009) and added to by the
Burstow, led to the derivation of equations to Institute of Railway Research.
predict wear rate from material properties.

Wear RateNew = Wear Rate260 − (8E − 15 ∗ From Figure 15, Burstow derived equations to
(E 2 ∗ Pe)/H 3 260 − (E 2 ∗ Pe)/H 3 New ) quantify each of the significant points marked on the
graph. These equations are as follows:
(8)
HardnessNew Material
2 TγThreshold = 15 ×
E ∗ Pe Hardness260 Material
Wear RateNew = 8E − 15 ∗ ( 3 ) − 69.008
H New
(9) (10)

RCF results HardnessNew Material

TγBalance = 175 ×
The Covid-19 virus unfortunately prevented access Harndess260 Material
to a twin disc rig, meaning no rolling contact fatigue (11)
(RCF) data could be gathered. As an alternative to
 11

Elongation260 Material
RCFpeak = 10 ×
ElongationNew Material

(12)

RCF Resistance260 Material

RCF65 = 10 ×
RCF ResistanceNew Material
(13)

Hardness vs no. cycles to RCF initiation

Hardness is used to characterise the Tγ Threshold
and Tγ Balance in Burstow’s WLRM equations, Figure 18: A graph of RCF data plotted against UTS
presumably due to its high correlation (0.975) to the (Burstow, 2009).
number of cycles to initiate RCF cracks, as seen in
Figure 17. Tγ Threshold is the Tγ value at which
RCF will begin to occur. Tγ Balance is the UTS whole life rail model
transition point from RCF to wear. The Tγ Figure 18 displayed the potential for estimating the
Threshold value should be proportional to the initiation of RCF cracks using UTS. Due to this, the
number of cycles to RCF initiation, so it is Tγ Threshold and Tγ Balance was formulated using
reasonable as to why Burstow uses hardness in his UTS data and the existing R260 grade data, to help
calculation of Tγ Threshold and Tγ Balance. create a new WLRM graph. This gave the following
equations:

UTSNew Material
TγThreshold = 15 ×
UTS260 Material
(14)

UTSNew Material
TγBalance = 175 ×
UTS260 Material
(15)

Using these new equations, as well as equation 12

and equation 13, a new WLRM graph was plotted,
as seen in Figure 19.
Figure 17: A graph of RCF data plotted against
hardness (Burstow,2009).

No. cycles to RCF initiation vs UTS

It was attempted in this study to see if the
previously found ratio of (E2 *Pe)/H3 would yield
greater correlation to the RCF resistance of the
different steel samples, however this showed a lower
correlation than plotting against hardness. Despite
this it was found in this study that the average
ultimate tensile strength taken from the head and
foot of the rail samples, had a perfect correlation (R2
= 1) to the RCF resistance data, used in Burstow’s Figure 19: A whole life rail model using UTS equation
studies. This can be seen in Figure 18. 13 and equation 14.
12

When comparing Figure 19 and Figure 16 it can be railway wear models. The understanding that a
noted that when using UTS to characterize the ratio of young’s modulus squared and percentage
WLRM, the Tγ Threshold and Tγ Balance values elongation to hardness cubed ((E2*Pe)/H3) could
are lower for all of the steel grades, compared to have a potentially large impact on the wear resistive
using hardness, like in Burstow’s equations. This properties of a rail steel, is of high value to the rail
implies that each of the steels may begin to industry, with regards to maintenance costing and
experience RCF crack initiation at a lower Tγ than scheduling. The implications of this project could
estimated by Burstow’s model. As well as this the lead to further testing to prove the model’s
UTS WLRM estimates that the wear region may repeatability and accuracy for use in the industry,
begin at a lower Tγ value than estimated by and could help to update current damage prediction
Burstow’s WLRM. models, like those discussed in the background
research section of this project. Due to Covid-19
Overall, the UTS WLRM shows that the rail steels preventing tests being conducted for this project
may have a slightly lower life expectancy than and a limited amount of data for analysis, it would
predicted using Burstow’s WLRM. Burstow’s be imperative to test that the proposed ratio
WLRM and the UTS WLRM do appear very displays the same correlations shown to the data
similar due to the high proportionality between used in this project.
hardness and UTS. The rail industry holds the
hardness of rail steels to a high regard concerning Comparing material properties to rolling contact
damage mechanism resistance; however, it may be fatigue (RCF) in this project, as seen in Figure 17
that the UTS is the important parameter. and Figure 18, led to new ideas for characterizing
Mark Burstow’s whole life rail model (WLRM).
DISCUSSION Findings in this report showed that a potentially
stronger correlation existed between ultimate
Detailed analysis of the material properties found in tensile strength (UTS) and RCF resistance (R2 =
this project could help to support existing findings. 1.0) than with hardness and RCF resistance (R2 =
For example, the correlation found between 0.975). This led to the idea that Mark Burstow’s
hardness and ultimate tensile strength, as seen in WLRM material characterization equations may be
Figure 7, may help to support claims that hardness more accurate when UTS is included instead of
tests can be used as a means of also finding the hardness, as can be seen in equations 14 and 15
ultimate tensile strength magnitude, which is a compared to equations 10 and 11. The UTS data
useful finding for saving money when testing rail was taken by averaging the UTS of samples from
steels. The material analysis conducted within this the head and foot of the rail. The material properties
project also shows that yield strength is vastly found in the tensile test conducted for this study and
different between the head and foot of a rail, as used in this analysis, may not be an exact match to
evidenced in Figure 9. The maximum difference the material properties of the samples used by
being as high as 24%. This could be investigated in Burstow to gather his data. It would be interesting
another study to see if this has any effect on the life to see further research on this as other material
cycle of a rail and the reasons behind this properties such as fracture strain, yield strength and
phenomenon. It is speculated in this study that the a ratio of (H3/(E2*Pe)), also showed better
heat treatment of samples was the reason for such correlation to the RCF resistance data than
discrepancies in results. The data showed that hardness. This may show that ductility and
HP335, a non-heat-treated specimen, had no toughness properties must be considered to predict
difference in yield strength at the head and foot - RCF crack initiation and wear properties, and not
whilst the other specimens exhibited large just hardness. Furthermore, the ability of a material
differences. The cooling rate of heat-treated to resist fracture may also be an important
samples is said to have a large impact on the yield parameter in determining the RCF resistance of a
strength of a material (Ochoa, Williams, & Chawla, material. The new wear model discussed in this
2003). project also supports this statement.

Comparing material properties to wear within this CONCLUSION

report has yielded evidence for a potential method
of predicting wear rate, which includes material In conclusion, considering the limitations of this
properties that have not been considered in previous project due to COVID-19, it has successfully
 13

compared experimental tensile test data from (2018). Judicious Selection of Available
several rail steel samples to wear and RCF data Rail Steels to Reduce Life Cycle Costs.
which was available in literature. From this a new Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 29.
method for predicting wear has been proposed using doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/09544097188
material properties not previously considered. This 02639
research also provides supporting evidence towards Bhusan, B. (2001). Modern Tribology Handbook (Vol.
existing findings on the relationship between 1). Columbus, Ohio: CRC Press. Retrieved
hardness and ultimate tensile strength. Moreover, from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=h6X
it highlights the necessity for further understanding
0NM7ME8IC&pg=PA840&lpg=PA840&
as to why differences in yield strength exist in the dq=E/H+rati
foot and head of the rail steel specimens of this Braghin, F., Lewis, R., Dwyer-Joyce, R., & Bruni,
report. Further to raising research questions, this S. (2006). A mathematical model to predict
project has attempted to offer another possible way railway wheel profile evolution due to wear.
of characterizing Mark Burstow’s whole life rail (261 ed.).
model, based on findings in this report. These Britannica, T. E. (N/A). Britannica. Retrieved from
collective finding should all help to contribute https://www.britannica.com/science/You
towards offering a better understanding of the link ngs-modulus
between material properties and damage British Steel. (2020). HP335 Rail for combatting
mechanisms of rails, thus helping to improve rolling contact fatigue and wear. PO Box
maintenance scheduling and costing. 1, Brigg Road, Scunthorpe, North
Lincolnshire, DN16 1BP: British Steel.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Retrieved from
https://britishsteel.co.uk/media/323526/
british-steel-hp335-datasheet.pdf
I would like to say a huge thank you to my project
Burstow, M. (2009). Proposed new WLRM damage
supervisor, Dr Phillip Shackleton, for his advice and functions for alternative rail materials. 3.
support throughout this project, during the Burstow, M. (2012). VTAC calculator: Guidance
lockdown and before the Covid-19 outbreak. I note for determining Tγ values. Network
would also like to thank everybody at the Institute Rail, London. Retrieved from
of Railway Research for their expertise and aid in https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-
publishing this article. Recognition must also be content/uploads/2016/12/VTAC-
given to the University of Huddersfield for calculator-Guidance-note-for-determining-
providing materials to aid in the construction of this Tgamma-values.pdf
article. CORROSIONPEDIA. (2018). Percent Elongation.
Retrieved from
REFERENCES https://www.corrosionpedia.com/definitio
n/6342/percent-elongation
Akchurin, A. (2017). Rolling Contact Fatigue. D.Raabe. (N/A). Nanostructure of pearlitic steels.
Retrieved from Retrieved from http://www.dierk-
https://www.tribonet.org/wiki/rolling- raabe.com/pearlitic-steels/
contact-fatigue/ F, B., R, L., R.S, D.-J., & S, B. (2006). A
ASTM International. (2021). Steel Standards. 100 mathematical model to predict railway wheel
Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West profile evolution due to wear.
Conshohocken, PA, 19428-2959, USA: Galas, R., Smejkal, D., Omasta, M., & Hartl, M.
ATSM. Retrieved from (2014). TWIN-DISC EXPERIMENTAL
https://www.astm.org/Standards/steel- DEVICE FOR STUDY OF ADHESION
standards.html IN WHEEL-RAIL CONTACT.
Bandula-Heva, T., & Dhanasekar, M. (2011). Engineering MECHANICS, 21(5), 329-334.
Determination of Stress-Strain Retrieved from
Characteristics of Railhead Steel using https://www.researchgate.net/publication
Image Analysis. International Journal of /317889979_TWIN-
Mathematical, Computational, Physical and DISC_EXPERIMENTAL_DEVICE_FO
Quantum Engineering, 5(12). Retrieved from R_STUDY_OF_ADHESION_IN_WHEE
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/48279/1/20120 L-RAIL_CONTACT
00677.pdf Hernandez, E. A. (2008). Wheel and Rail Contact
Bevan, A., Jaiswal, J., Smith , A., & Cabral, M. O. Simulation Using a Twin Disc Tester. Thesis
Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of
14

Philosophy, The University of Sheffield, Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F

Department of Mechanical Engineering. Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, p. 24.
Hertz, H. (1881/1896). On the contact of elastic Ochoa, F., Williams, J., & Chawla, N. (2003).
solids. Miscellaneous Papers. Effects of cooling rate on the
Hiensch, M., & Burgelman, N. (2018). ROLLING microstructure and tensile behavior of a
CONTACT FATIGUE: DAMAGE Sn-3.5wt.%Ag solder. Journal of Electronic
FUNCTION DEVELOPMENT FROM Materials, 1414-1420.
TWO-DISC TEST DATA. 11th doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11664-003-
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON 0109-z
CONTACT MECHANICS AND WEAR Peter, S. (2007). The Fundamentals of Piping
OF RAIL/WHEEL SYSTEMS (CM2018), Design. Metallic Materials for Piping
430-431, 383-390. Components, Chapter 3, 115-136. Retrieved
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2019.0 from
5.028 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar
Hiensch, M., & Burgelman, N. (2018). ROLLING ticle/pii/B9781933762043500126
CONTACT FATIGUE: DAMAGE Pombo, J., Ambrosio, J., Pereira, M., & others, a.
FUNCTION DEVELOPMENT FROM (2010). A RAILWAY WHEEL WEAR
TWO-DISC TEST DATA. 11th PREDICTION TOOL BASED.
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL AND
CONTACT MECHANICS AND WEAR APPLIED MECHANICS, 770.
HANICS AND WEAR, 430-431, 376-382. Quost, X., Ariaudo, C., Dwyer-Joyce, R., Kuka, N.,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2019.0 Lewis, R., & Tassini, N. (2010, February).
5.028 A numerical model of twin disc test
Iwnicki, S. (2006). Handbook of railway vehicle arrangement for the evaluation of railway
dynamics. (S. Iwnicki, A. Wickens, A. wheel wear prediction methods. Wear,
Orlova, & More Contributors, Eds.) 268(5-6), 32.
Manchester: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis doi:10.1016/j.wear.2009.11.003
Group, LLC. Rail, N. (2012). VTAC calculator: Guidance note
Lewis, R., Christoforou, P., Wang, W. J., Beagles, for determining Tγ values., Issue 1, p. 7.
A., Burstow, M., & Lewis, S. R. (2019). Retrieved from
Investigation of the influence of rail https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-
hardness on the wear of rail and content/uploads/2016/12/VTAC-
wheelmaterials under dry conditions (ICRI calculator-Guidance-note-for-determining-
wear mapping project). Wear, 383-392. Tgamma-values.pdf
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2019.0 Shebani, A., & Iwnicki, S. (2016). The Effect of
5.030 Surface Condition on Wear of a Railway
Lewis, R., Magel, E., Wang, W.-j., Olofsson, U., Wheel and Rail. International Journal of
Lewis, S., Slatter, T., & Beagles, A. (2017, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering,
Feb). Towards a Standard Approach for 10(9), 8.
Wear Testing of Wheel and Rail Surzhenhov, A. (2016). Is high hardness and high
Materials. Proceedings of the Institution of H/E and H3/E2 associated with brittleness
Mechanical Engineers Part F Journal of Rail in. Tallinn University of Technology.
and Rapid Transit, 231(7), 1-27. Retrieved from
doi:10.1177/0954409717700531 https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_hi
Martins, J. M. (2001). Contact Mechanics. gh_hardness_and_high_H_E_and_H3_E2
Proceedings of the 3rd Contact Mechanics _associat
International Symposium, (p. 434). Lisbon. SUSTRAIL. (n.d.). The sustainable freight railway:
Molyneux-Berry, P., Davis, C., & Bevan, A. (2014). Designing he freight vehicle – track
The Influence of Wheel/Rail Contact system for higher delivered tonnage with
Conditions on the Microstructure and improved availability at reduced cost. (A.
Hardness of Railway Wheels. (S. Ubertini, Beagles, Ed.) SUSTRAIL Concluding
Ed.) Research Article, Volume 2014(Article Technical Report, 198. doi:ISBN: 978-2-
ID 209752), 16. 7461-2401-1
Muhamedsalih, Y., Stow, J., & Bevan, A. (2018). Tomoya, K., Shigeru, F., & Hamanda , N. (2013).
Use of railway wheel wear and damage Proposal for an engineering definition of a
predictions tools to improve maintenance fatigue crack initiation unit for evaluating the
efficiency through the use of Economic fatigue limit on the basis of crystallographic
Tyre Turning (ETT). Proceedings of the analysis of pearlitic steel. Springer
 15

Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

doi:10.1007/s10704-013-9895-3
Wang, Q. J., & Chung, Y.-W. (Eds.). (2013). Hertz
Theory: Contact of Spherical Surfaces.
Encyclopedia of Tribology, 109.
Wangyang, N., Cheng, Y.-T., Lukitsch, M.,
Weiner, A., & Lev, L. (2004). Effects of the
ratio of hardness to Young’s modulus on
the friction and wear behavior of bilayer
coatings. Applied Physics Letters, 85(18).
Yates, J. K. (1996). British Steel: Innovation in Rail
Steel. Science in Parliament. Retrieved from
http://www.phase-
trans.msm.cam.ac.uk/parliament.html
ZaaZaa, K., & Schwab, A. (2009, Aug - Sep).
REVIEW OF JOOST KALKER’S
WHEEL-RAIL CONTACT THEORIES
AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION IN
MULTIBODY CODES. Proceedings of the
ASME 2009 International Design
Engineering Technical Conferences &
Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference (p. 13). San Diego: ASME.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication
/267488535_Review_of_Joost_Kalker's_
Wheel-
Rail_Contact_Theories_and_Their_Imple
mentation_in_Multibody_Codes