Improving aluminothermic weld performance on Transnet’s heavy haul

systems
K. Mistry & J. Duvel
Transnet Freight Rail, Johannesburg, South Africa

ABSTRACT: Improved rail integrity on Transnet’s heavy haul systems is critical in order to ensure reliable,
safe and affordable railway operations. Aluminothermic welds are dominant contributors to rail failures and
related derailments. Improvement to aluminothermic weld performance has a significant influence on overall
rail performance and thus the success of the operations and therefore demand ongoing focus. The objective is
therefore to reduce failures in aluminothermic welds by means of a range of management initiatives. A review
of trends in aluminothermic weld failures, evaluation of root causes and dominant failure modes, together with
detailed metallurgical assessments, drive the important areas of improvement in order to accurately address the
relevant problems. This has led to a wide range of actions which include: effective maintenance management
strategies, training, improved quality control, advanced technologies; and efficient condition monitoring. These
measures have been successful in reducing aluminothermic weld failures.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Rails
Transnet’s Sishen - Saldanha Iron Ore Export Line
(ORELINE) and the Broodsnyersplaas - Richards Both systems are predominantly installed with
Bay Coal Export Line (COALLINE) demand CEN 60E1 rail profiles of head-hardened grade
progressive development in order to ensure ongoing 350LHT. The remaining construction-vintage UIC60
safe and affordable operations. As aluminothermic and S60 grade 1100 (Cr-Mn) rails are now negligible
welds are dominant contributors to rail failures and within each fleet. New rails are imported in 60 m
related derailments, particularly for the ORELINE lengths, flash-butt welded into 240 m strings in
(Duvel & Mistry 2017), improvement to their Kimberley, and welded into track by means of
performance is central to the reliability of the aluminothermic welding.
systems. Furthermore, the systems are considered to
2.2 Aluminothermic weld process
be critical infrastructure for the nation. The operating
and technical characteristics of each system are given The Goldschmidt Thermit SkV-M aluminothermic
the Table 1. weld process is deployed on both systems due to the
A detailed review of aluminothermic weld more generous gap tolerance, longer pre-heat time
performance has therefore been performed herein, and longer shearing time compared to the SkV-F
followed by root cause analysis and targeted process. The SkV-F process was used previously but
strategies to reduce failures and mitigate derailments. proved to be problematic in terms of high failure
rates. The SkV-M process on the other hand is more
Table 1. System characteristics forgiving, particularly in casting of emergency welds
Parameter ORELINE COALLINE during any time of the day – a huge benefit
Route Length 860 km (Single line) 510 km (Double line) considering the prevailing climatic conditions. The
Train Length 342 Wagons 200 Wagons SkV-M weld process is shown diagrammatically in
Annual Gross Tonnage 84 MGt Line 1: 90 MGt
Figure 1 and the primary differences between the two
FY16/17 Line 2: 28 MGt
Total: 118 MGt processes are summarised in Table 2.
Maximum Axle Load 30 tonnes 26 tonnes The Single Use Crucible (SUC) is used and the
Maximum Speed (Loaded) 60 km/h 80 km/h weld portion is Z-120 for head-hardened rail. No
Ruling Gradient (Loaded) 0.40% 0.63% post-cast cooling treatment is deployed.
Minimum Curve Radius 1000 m 550 m
 40
Pre-heating is by means of petrol-air mixture at a ORELINE
combined pressure of 25 - 30 kPa. Petrol-air pre-heat 35 COALLINE
is beneficial due to the following:
 Proximity of petrol availability to remote areas; 30

Number of Rail Breaks

 Mobility of heater equipment; 25
 Fixed hose length resulting in consistent pressure;
20
and
 Improved Welder productivity and unit cost. 15
Furthermore, weld failure rates related to petrol-
10
air pre-heat were found to be considerably lower
compared to the oxygen-propane pre-heat previously 5
used. Oxygen-propane was problematic due to issues
0
with hiring/ transport/ storage of cylinders; poor 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
availability of suppliers in remote areas; and Financial Year To Date

variability in oxygen quality and tendency for
Welders to extend hoses – thereby reducing pre-heat
effectiveness.
Figure 2. Rail break history (including all weld breaks)
3.2 Breaks in aluminothermic welds
For both systems, breaks related to aluminothermic
welds account for almost half of all rail breaks (Duvel
& Mistry 2017). Figure 3 demonstrates the trends in
breaks in aluminothermic welds since 2010. There
has been a dramatic improvement in performance for
the ORELINE from 2012 and this is as a result of a
wide range of successful interventions actioned
during the period. The COALLINE shows some
improvement since 2013, but marginal improvement
over the entire period.

20
ORELINE
COALLINE

15
at Aluminothermic Welds
Number of Breaks

10
Figure 1. Diagram of SkV-M weld process with SUC

5
Table 2. Primary differences between weld processes
Process SkV-F SkV-M
Allowable Gap 24 - 26 mm 35 - 40 mm 0
Pre-heat Time: Petrol-Air 7 minutes 8 minutes 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17
Financial Year To Date
Shearing Time from Pour 5 minutes 6 - 7 minutes
Figure 3. Break history: aluminothermic welds

3 RAIL BREAK TRENDS

3.1 Rail break history
The annual trend in rail breaks (i.e. total rail breaks,
including all weld breaks) is shown in Figure 2 for
each system. Whilst the ORELINE shows significant
reduction in rail breaks since 2010, despite gross
tonnages having in fact doubled through the period,
this level of dramatic improvement is not observed on
the COALLINE. The respective trends are driven by
the trends in breaks in aluminothermic welds
demonstrated below.
3.3 Aluminothermic weld break density
The comparison of the average density of breaks
occurring per year in aluminothermic welds,
normalised by line length, is given in Figure 4.
COALLINE Line 1 (which almost exclusively carries
loaded coal traffic) is therefore currently
experiencing a significantly higher density of breaks
in aluminothermic welds than the ORELINE. This is
due to the fact that, whilst the ORELINE is operating
at a 30 tonne axle load, COALLINE Line 1 is
expected to suffer greater rail stresses – resulting in
reduced safety margin with respect to the weld
fracture toughness – due to the following:
 Greater lateral loading and Rolling-Contact
Fatigue (RCF) damage due to higher eccentric
loading as a function of the sharper track
curvature;
 Greater rail tensile longitudinal stresses due to the
increased traction loading, braking forces and
related rail movement due to steeper gradients;
and
 Greater propensity for rail internal defect
occurrence and growth due to higher rail surface
damage and contact stresses.
0.011
0.010
0.009
Annual Breaks per Rail km
(Aluminothermic Welds)
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
ORELINE COALLINE Line 1
System
Figure 4. Density of aluminothermic weld breaks
COALLINE Line 2 performance is significantly
better than that of Line 1 and the ORELINE. This is
expected, as the annual traffic volume for Line 2 is
less than a third of that of Line 1 (refer to Table 1).
Furthermore, Line 2 almost exclusively carries empty
coal wagons returning to the coal fields for re-
loading, whilst Line 1 almost exclusively carries
wagons loaded with export coal at an axle load of 26
tonnes. There is naturally increased fatigue life for
aluminothermic welds on Line 2 due to a lower
propensity for internal defect growth due to the
combination of lower bending stresses and lower
contact stresses.
3.4 Assessment of management of rail breaks
The management of rails includes routine rail testing
to detect defects prior to ultimate failure (Duvel
2005). The break / defect ratio, an internationally
recognised metric (IHHA 2001), assesses the
effectiveness of rail management strategies, based on
the premise that ultrasonically detected defects are
necessary for the effective control of rail breaks
(Duvel & Mistry 2017).
As demonstrated in Figure 5, the ORELINE shows
a significantly better break / defect ratio for
aluminothermic welds than the COALLINE.
Therefore, the ultrasonic testing regime in place on
the ORELINE is considered to be overall more
effective, specifically in managing aluminothermic
weld failures. This is very positive in light of the high
derailment probability for the ORELINE (Duvel &
Mistry 2017).
80%
70%
60%
(Aluminothermic Welds)
Break / Defect Ratio
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ORELINE COALLINE Line 1 COALLINE Line 2
System
Figure 5. Break / defect ratio for aluminothermic welds
3.5 Types of aluminothermic weld breaks
At Transnet (Transnet 2012), breaks at
COALLINE Line 2
aluminothermic welds are classified as being either:
 Straight type breaks “through” the weld, i.e. within
the weld collar: Break codes H2 and H6. Refer to
Figure 6 which indicates the this break
classification code according to Transnet’s
Manual for Track Maintenance (Transnet 2012);
or
 Straight type breaks “adjacent” to the weld, i.e.
beyond the edge of the weld collar, in the heat
affected zone: Break codes H3 and H7; or
 Horizontal split web type breaks: Break code H5.
For both systems, the straight break type is
overwhelmingly dominant. Straight breaks through
(break codes H2 and H6), represent three quarters of
break types in aluminothermic welds and are thus the
focus of analysis. Only one horizontal split web type
break (H5) has been experienced during the period
(ironically on COALLINE Line 2) and this is an
extremely isolated case.
Figure 6. Aluminothermic weld break classification:
Straight break through
4 ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS According to the metallurgical analysis, the typical
microstructure of shrinkage cavity in the web was
Rail breaks are routinely sent (ideally within 7 days found to be pearlitic. Here, shrinkage porosity is
of occurrence) to Transnet’s Metallurgical present amongst grains of pearlite, as shown in Figure
Laboratory for detailed analysis. This enables 8. Micro-shrinkage porosity is also present, however
evaluations of the root cause and thorough this is typical of any castings (Campbell & Harding
metallurgical assessment of each aluminothermic 1994).
weld failure. The dominant failure modes for straight Examination under a scanning electron
breaks through the weld have therefore been microscope revealed that the initiation point of the
established. These include: fracture surfaces are typical dendritic structures, as
 Shrinkage cavity in the web; shown in Figure 9. These dendrites indicate either
 Stress raiser defect in the foot; and insufficient heat or insufficient feed of molten metal
 Hot tear in the head/ web area. and this therefore proves that insufficient pre-heat is
influential.
4.1 Shrinkage cavity in the web
Shrinkage cavities in the web typically occur at the
lower end of the web. Refer to Figure 7. The defect
forms due to insufficient liquid metal flow into the
cavity that develops as the surrounding areas solidify.
A microstructure change also occurs and the
combined effect is volume shrinkage and subsequent
contraction (Chen et al. 2006). The typical causes are
all Welder related, as follows:
 Movement occurring during the removal of the
mould shoes; or
 Improper preparation of the weld prior to
stripping; or
 Insufficient pre-heat. Figure 8. Porosity microstructure: shrinkage cavity in the web

This failure mode is more dominant on the

COALLINE due to the more extreme temperature
variations of the area. There is thus propensity for rail
longitudinal tensile stresses to develop during casting
if welds are cast during times of falling temperatures,
and this subsequently contributes to the formation of
shrinkage cavities.
Shrinkage cavities in the web are oriented in the
direction of the zero degree ultrasonic probe used for
the web and are therefore not detectable by means of
the routine ultrasonic testing currently deployed.

Figure 9. Dendritic structure: shrinkage cavity in the web

4.2 Stress raiser defect in the foot

Stress raiser defects in the foot commonly occur at
the rail to weld interface or close to the edge of the
weld collar. Typically, the initiation is related to:
 Lack of fusion due to a cold shut. This is primarily
as a result of: the moulds not being centrally
placed over the gap and/ or the moulds being
skewed due to excessive rail height difference and/
or incorrect weld gap. Alternate causes include the
luting sand not being properly compacted under
Figure 7. Shrinkage cavity in the web the foot. Refer to Figure 10; or
 Lack of fusion due to uneven pre-heat; or
 Flashing. This is due to molten metal solidifying
where the two piece moulds are supposed to join
closely. Sand burns can also occur. See Figure 11.
The causes include the opening of the mould under
the foot due to improper fitment and/ or
overtightening and/ or placing the clamps to high.
There is thus a potential flaw in the use of the two
piece mould design which needs to be effectively
counter-acted with Welder training.

The COALLINE is notorious for this failure mode as

a result of problems with weld preparation. This
applies specifically to the tendency for Welders to
rush the preparation of the weld due to operational
pressures placed on them to open the line to traffic
sooner than is reasonable. Issues with mould fitment
therefore proliferate.
Stress raiser defects in the foot are not always
situated directly under the web, and are transversely
oriented (i.e. in the direction of the zero degree
ultrasonic probe) and are therefore not detectable by
means of the routine ultrasonic testing currently
deployed.
Figure 10. Stress raiser defect in the foot due to lack of fusion
Figure 12. Fractograph: Lack of fusion defect in the foot
4.3 Hot tear in the head/ web area
Hot tears in the head/ web area occur at the rail to
weld interface at the edge of the weld collar, as shown
in Figure 13. There may be individual defects on
either the gauge or field side, or on both sides of the
rail. Typically, the defects are as a result of disruption
of weld solidification due to causes described above
for shrinkage cavity in the web. Furthermore, it is
possible that negative temperature changes and
resultant rail tensile longitudinal stresses are
sufficient to cause the hot tear.
This failure mode is more dominant on the
ORELINE due to the tendency for the Welders on the
system to plate and clamp the weld while it is still in
the plastic state. The restraint on the weld thus
generates tensile stresses during cooling and this
results in the hot tearing.
The zone of the weld in which these hot tear
defects are situated is typically not visible to any of
the ultrasonic probes currently in use. The ultrasonic
detectability of these defects is therefore very low.

Figure 11. Stress raiser defect in the foot due to flashing

The initiation point for a lack of fusion defect in the

foot is characterised by a very small dendritic area,
followed by a fatigue crack, followed by an area of
fast brittle failure. Refer to Figure 12. The scanning
electron microscopy typically shows a smooth
fracture surface. (It is difficult to observe the beach Figure 13. Hot tear in the head/ web area
marks in this image due to the beach marks being
confused with the pearlitic microstructure.)
 Examination under a scanning electron
microscope revealed that the initiation point of the
fracture surfaces are typical dendritic structures
similar to those shown above for shrinkage cavity in
the web.
5 RADIOGRAPHIC TESTING
All aluminothermic welds are radiographed (“X-
rayed”) within 7 days of manufacture for acceptance,
as part of Transnet’s established weld quality control
regime. Radiographic inspection is proven to be
highly effective in identifying weld defects not
identifiable by ultrasonic testing (Duvel 2005).
Furthermore, it has been found at Transnet that
poorly manufactured welds likely to fail the
radiographic examination in terms of internal defects
invariably have additional and/ or related defects such
as dipped vertical profile and/ or breakouts of the rail
crown. These conditions influence impact loads on
the rail and place the weld under severe dynamic
stress and further increase the risk of weld failure.
Radiographic testing entails films positions on the
web and foot of the rail as shown in Figure 14. One
radiographic film is used for the foot which is
subjected to two exposures on each side of the foot,
whilst the third shot is on the web.
Figure 14. Radiographic film positions
5.1 Radiographic failure rates
An assessment of the failure rates for 2016 shows that
the overall percentage of welds failed (i.e. Class 2
plus Class 3 failures) is 12% for the ORELINE and
9% for the COALLINE. Transnet’s targeted
radiographic failure rate for the heavy haul systems is
less than 5% and this is certainly possible, as proved
by the very good performance of certain Welders,
some reporting failure rates much lower than 5%.
5.2 Radiographic defect types
For both systems, the predominant defect type is
wormholing (85% of radiographic defects), followed
by inclusions at 10%. This high incidence of
wormholing is commonplace for the Transnet
environment and is a function of the combination of
the physical occurrence of this particular defect and
the defect classification standard currently adopted
by Transnet. Other heavy-haul railways typically
experience higher incidences of inclusions and
significantly less wormholing (Mutton 2007). The
predominant location of defects reported by the
radiographic examinations is the foot of the rail,
which is typical for a heavy-haul railway (Offereins
& Mutton 2001).
Wormholing is essentially a form of elongated
porosity due to gasses drawing during weld
solidification. This is affected by various
combinations of the following Welder-dependant
issues:
 Inadequate pre-heat of the multi-use crucible;
 Moisture in the mould, crucible or luting sand;
 Rails/ moulds not aligned;
 Sand not applied properly to seal the moulds; and
 Insufficient pre-heat.
Inclusions are foreign particles trapped in the weld,
affected by various combinations of the following
Welder-dependant issues:
 Cleanliness of the crucible;
 Cleanliness of the mould;
 Cleanliness of the rail ends; and
 The intrusion of sand/ mould particles into the
weld metal.
Typical radiographic defects are demonstrated in
Figures 15 to 18.
Figure 15. Radiograph indicating wormholing in rail foot
 dominant root cause failure modes for weld breaks
are typically located in such zones of the weld.

6 ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS

6.1 Welder assessment
A certification system is being established whereby
routine formal training and practical assessment of
Welders is a mandatory safety-critical requirement
done every two years.
Figure 16. Radiograph indicating inclusions in rail foot Welders showing high failure rates are
immediately stopped and re-assessed/ re-certified.
Task observations are done and the Welder’s working
conditions and equipment critically assessed.

6.2 Welder training

A one day on-site workshop/ presentation is
conducted by the approved welding equipment/
consumables supplier, ideally every six months, as a
refresher session. Failure rates, types of defects and
related causes are discussed and welders concerns are
raised. Precision and consistency is imperative
Figure 17. Radiograph indicating shrinkage cativy in rail web
(IHHA 2001). Each step of the welding process is re-
enforced and focus is placed on the relevant standards
and specifications, particularly:

Weld preparation:
 Square cutting of rail ends;
 Rail setup and alignment;
 Gap setting; and
 Accounting for rail wear: Rail height difference
shall not exceed 6 mm and the correct step mould
kits shall be used if rail height difference is 3 – 6
Figure 18. Radiograph indicating lack of fusion in rail foot mm. Where rail height difference exceeds 6 mm,
an appropriate closure to be used. This is critical
as it is a common fault.
5.3 Relationship to failure modes
Fitting of moulds:
Converse to the radiographic defect types, the  Cleaning and adjustment;
dominant root cause failure modes for weld breaks  Mould placed centrally over the gap and
described above (i.e. shrinkage cavity in the web, alignment/ fitment;
stress raiser defect in the foot and hot tear in the head/  Sealing of moulds with luting sand, correctly
web area) do not include wormholing and inclusions. compacted at the bottom of the rail foot. This is
This is due to the fact that the failure modes for weld critical as it is a common fault; and
breaks are typically not detected by radiographic  Fitting of mould shoes: Caution to not overtighten
testing as a result of the following limitations of the as this could lead to opening of the mould under
radiography deployed: the foot.
 There are three major blind spots where it is not
possible to detect defects, i.e. the head/ web area, Pre-heating:
the web/ foot area and the centre of the foot.  Burner to be placed centrally over the gap;
Therefore, stress raiser defects in the foot and hot  Gas pressures; and
tears in the head/ web area are naturally missed;  Pre-heating time.
 Furthermore, the radiographic plate is distorted at
the web/ foot area and thus shrinkage cavities in Tapping
the web are very often obscured as these occur
mostly at the lower end of the web; and Finalising:
 Radiography is less effective for material  Mould removal procedure and timing;
thicknesses of greater than 20 mm. Defects for the
 No rail movement during weld solidification;
 Stripping and shearing; and
 Final grinding.
Accounting for environmental/ weather conditions,
particularly humidity.
6.3 Welder recognition
Formal rewarding of Welders is done regularly
according to low radiographic failure rates. An
"Annual Award for Welding Excellence" is given to
Welders who prove consistently low failure rates for
the various Depots within each system.
6.4 Single Use Crucible
Failure rates have been proven to reduce with the
adoption of the Single Use Crucible (Hefer &
Radmann 2015), for the Thermit SkV-M welding
process deployed. This is due to the superior
cleanliness and reduced intensity of preparation
compared to the previously used long life (“multi
use”) crucible. There is thus significantly reduced
scope for Welder error or carelessness with the Single
Use Crucible and it has therefore been used
exclusively since 2012. The incidence of breaks in
aluminothermic welds has reduced as a result,
particularly on the ORELINE.
6.5 Thermal insulator
Research has shown that the solidification rate
influences the formation of shrinkage defects. It is
therefore important to ensure that the cooling rate is
controlled. This entails adherence to correct pre-
heating times which enable adequate solidification
time for the molten metal. The introduction of a
thermal insulator at the foot of the rail (refer to Figure
19) has proven to ensure a slower cooling rate and
better mechanical properties of the weld metal
(Simelane 2012).
Figure 19. Thermal insulator between the mould and shoe
7 QUALITY CONTROL
7.1 Radiographic testing
Compliance with the stipulated radiographic testing
regime is being enforced:
 X-Rays to be done within 7 days of manufacture;
 Reports issued within 14 days of manufacture;
 Failed welds to be replaced (Class 3: Cut out with
an emergency occupation. Class 2: removed
within 30 days of manufacture); and
 Welds to be clamped from the date of
manufacture, until cleared. All clamps to be
inspected weekly and tightened/ adjusted if
necessary.
A documentation system is established to:
 Properly manage all new welds from installation,
to radiography, to reporting, to final acceptance
(or replacement if failed); and
 Routinely assess Welder performance according
to radiographic test results.
7.2 Inspection
Visual inspection and geometric measurement
(especially vertical profile) of all new welds is done
within 7 days of manufacture and recorded.
Acceptance criteria are as follows:
 The weld surface shall be free of any cracks, slag,
inclusions, undercuts, porosity or foreign material;
 The head and foot of the rail on either side of the
weld collar shall be vertically aligned to a
tolerance of 3 mm for the standard mould;
 The foot of the rail on either side of the weld collar
shall be horizontally aligned within 3 mm;
 The two piece moulds must be aligned to a
tolerance of 3 mm;
 After final grind, a 0.2 mm feeler gauge may not
fit through any gap between the centre of the rail
crown running surface and a 1 metre straight edge
placed longitudinally across the weld; and
 A 0.2 mm feeler gauge may not fit through any gap
between the gauge face and a 1 metre straight edge
placed longitudinally across the weld.
8 REDUCING BENDING STRESSES
Due the reduced fracture toughness of welds, it is
imperative to reduce bending stresses where possible
(Gehrmann & Radmann 2013). The following have
therefore been implemented:
 Improving track support. All welds are tamped 7
days from manufacture;
 Monitoring of rail surface condition. Plasser
IM2000 track geometry measurement car data is
being used to identify locations of high wheel-rail
impacts and thus dipped welds, rail break-outs/
spalling, etc. (in addition to other faults such as
faulty/ damaged turnout components). This is by
 means of the Vertical Force Reading (VFR)
metric. VFR accelerations exceeding 30g are
prioritised, followed by site inspections and action
plans to eliminate the defects; and
 Monitoring of vehicle condition. A thorough
review of alarm levels/ hierarches and respective
action criteria for the relevant wayside monitoring
equipment, specifically the weighbridges and the
Weigh-in-Motion Wheel Impact Monitor (WIM-
WIM), is planned. This will include detailed audits
of equipment availability/ calibration, and audits
of alarm monitoring at the Centralised Train
Control Centre (CTC).
9 CONCLUSION
More than half of all rail breaks on Transnet’s heavy
haul systems relate to aluminothermic welds. There
is therefore a significant impact of the improvements
to aluminothermic weld performance on overall rail
performance and system safety.
The dominant type of break is straight and there
are various failure modes which all relate to Welder
performance and are thus avoidable to a large extent.
The issues of technology/ product selection are thus
secondary to rectifying Welder performance and
improving weld management.
Therefore, ongoing training of Welders and
improvements to quality control are central and
safety-critical. The ORELINE requires focused
attention due the more challenging operating
environment and higher probability of derailment due
to breaks at aluminothermic welds (Duvel & Mistry
2017). Performance on the COALLINE can do with
some improvement, particularly for Line 1 due to the
rail stress conditions.
There has been an improvement to
aluminothermic weld performance since introduction
of the various interventions, particularly for the
ORELINE. This is a continuous process requiring
ongoing evaluation, assessment and adjustment.
10 REFERENCES
Campbell, J. & Harding, R. 1994. Solidification Defects in
Castings, Talat Lecture 3207, European Aluminium
Association
Chen, Y., Lawrence, F., Barkan, C., Dantzig, J. 2006. Weld
defect formation in rail thermite welds. Proceedings –
Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F Journal of Rail
and Rapid Transit, December 2006
Duvel, J., Mutton, P. & Alvarez, E. 2005. Rail requirements for
40 tonne axle loads, Proceedings – 8th International Heavy
Haul Conference, Rio de Janeiro, June 2005.
Duvel, J. & Mistry, K. 2017. Improving rail integrity on the
Sishen-Saldanha line, Proceedings – 11th International
Heavy Haul Conference, Cape Town, September 2017.
Gehrmann, R., Radmann, P. & Keichel, J. 2013. Optimisation
of thermit welding, Proceedings – 10th International Heavy
Haul Conference, New Delhi, February 2013.
Hefer, F., Radmann, P. & Keichel, J. 2015. Rail joining under
heavy haul conditions, Proceedings – International Heavy
Haul Conference, Perth, June 2015
IHHA, International Heavy Haul Association. 2001. Guidelines
to Best Practices for Heavy Haul Railway Operations:
Wheel and Rail Interface Issues. Chapter 5.2: Rail Structural
Deterioration
Mutton, P. 2007. Failure modes and non-destructive inspection
requirements for aluminothermic rail welds under high axle
load conditions, Proceedings – 5th International Institute of
Welding Asian Pacific International Congress and Welding
Technology Institute of Australia Technology Week, Sydney,
March 2007
Offereins, G. & Mutton, P. 2001. Recent experiences with the
performance of aluminothermic rail welds under high axle
loads, Rail Track Conference, 2001
Simelane, N. 2012. The innovation of using the insulation insert
as means of reducing heat losses during aluminothermic
welding in uncontrolled conditions. Bachelors of
Technology dissertation, University of Johannesburg.
Transnet. 2012. Manual for Track Maintenance (2012)