See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341960630

The role of welding parameters on the control of the microstructure and

mechanical properties of rails welded using FBW

Article in Journal of Materials Research and Technology · June 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.05.030

CITATIONS READS

0 96

5 authors, including:

Luiz Felipe Bauri Henrique Pereira

University of São Paulo University of São Paulo
5 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 9 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andre Tschiptschin Helio Goldenstein

University of São Paulo University of São Paulo
201 PUBLICATIONS 1,870 CITATIONS 189 PUBLICATIONS 985 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Diamond-like carbon coatings for automobile applications View project

Damascus steel. Reproduction and comparisson View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Luiz Felipe Bauri on 06 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.jmrt.com.br

Original Article

The role of welding parameters on the control of

the microstructure and mechanical properties of
rails welded using FBW

L.F. Bauri a,∗ , L.H.D. Alves b , H.B. Pereira a , A.P. Tschiptschin a , H. Goldenstein a
a Universidade de São Paulo, Escola Politécnica, Departamento de Engenharia Metalúrgica e de Materiais, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
b Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, Minas Gerais, MG, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Heavy haul railways are increasingly being subjected to operating conditions that demand
Received 23 January 2020 better performance of the materials, with speeds of operation and loads increasing to comply
Accepted 10 May 2020 with the large demand for transportation. For joining of rails, the Flash Butt Welding (FBW)
process stands out due to the higher quality of the joint with respect to thermite welding.
However, the properties of the rails may be compromised because of improper parameter-
Keywords: ization of the welding process and the appearance of defects in the welded joint, as well
Flash butt welding (FBW) as heterogeneities in the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ). In this work, a statistically planned
Heat-Affected zone (HAZ) experimental array was used to study four parameters of the FBW process (pulse current,
Premium and super premium number of pulses, upsetting force, and equivalent carbon) on Premium and Super Premium
Rails rail steels. The array generated eight different welding conditions. The results made it pos-
Microstructure sible to understand the relationship between the microstructure and the microhardness
Mechanical properties maps on the longitudinal section of the welded joint. Fracture analysis showed the fracture
mechanisms for each welding condition. The Premium rails showed double-necking in the
partial austenitization region while Super Premium rails showed brittle fracture, except for
the more extreme welding condition. Additionally, two welding conditions showed double-
necking in the partial austenitization region, but with brittle fracture outside the necking
region. Tensile tests showed that the welding condition that corresponds the highest heat
input presented the worst mechanical behavior for applications on railroads and the welding
conditions with lowest heat input presented the best behavior.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the
CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

have continuously increased, in response to higher demand

1. Introduction on the railroads. The microstructure more frequently used is
fully pearlitic (lamellar aggregate of the ferrite (␣) + cemen-
Brazilian railroads are mainly used for heavy haul applica-
tite (Fe3 C)) according to the American Railway Engineering and
tions, carrying mainly grain and ore. Over the years, axle loads
Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standard [1].
According to Brazil’s National Land Transportation
Agency’s (ANTT) statistical annual report [2], the Carajás
∗ Railroad (EFC - Estrada de Ferro Carajás) carries around 205.4
Corresponding author.
E-mail: luizbauri@usp.br (L. Bauri).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.05.030
2238-7854/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073
thousand nominal tons of cargo (which corresponds to about
36% of the Brazilian railway cargo), while the Vitória a Minas
Railroad (EFVM - Estrada de Ferro Vitória a Minas), carries
124.3 thousand nominal tons of cargo (corresponding to
transporting about 22% of the Brazilian railway cargo) in 2018.
The loads employed in Brazilian railroads reached 32.5 tons
per axle and, hereafter, with the use of the new GDU railroad
car, the loads will tend to increase to about 37.5 tons per axle.
The traditional method of joining the rails was to bolt them
together, but the rails were subject to several failures and
maintenance costs were higher. To minimize this problem,
rail welding was developed bringing clear improvements [3].
There are two main kinds of rail welding processes: (1) Flash
Butt Welding (FBW) and (2) Thermite (aluminothermic weld-
ing). The use of Continuous Welded Rails (CWR) using the
FBW process corresponds to about 80% of the rail welds in the
world, due to its better quality [4]. Whereas, thermite weld-
ing is commonly used in field applications and to repair rail
failures.
The FBW process is characterized as an electrical resistance
welding process in which the joining of the parts is obtained
by heating, generated from the resistance to the current flow,
followed by pressure exerted on the contact regions of the
parts to be welded [5]. Besides, the heating of rails promotes
localized fusion on the bonding surfaces. The FBW process is
divided into three steps:
1) Preheating: this first step is performed to decrease the
mechanical resistance between the surfaces that will con-
tact and reduce the upsetting force required to perform
the welding. Preheating contributes to decreasing the cool-
ing rate after welding and avoiding undesirable martensite
transformation. In the case of Vignole rails, the large cross-
section area which has a large amount of surface/volume
makes this issue very important.
2) Flashing: the second stage begins with a continuous move-
ment of the rail at a constant speed, and then, the
approach and separation movement. During the process,
the surfaces form some contact points due to surface irreg-
ularities. Through these points, a large amount of electric
current is passed generating the flashing.
3) Upsetting: immediately after flashing, a compressive force
is applied so that there is forging between the rails. In the
final stage of upsetting, the electric current is switched
off automatically. To ensure a good quality of welding,
the pressure exerted must eject liquid metals, oxides, and
impurities from the interface, assuring metal/metal con-
tact.
At the end of the welding, there is a heterogeneous dis-
tribution of temperatures along the longitudinal section of
the rail. Ziemian, Sharma, and Whaley [6] pointed out that
appropriate selection of the welding parameters is crucial in
order to economically achieve the desired combination of weld
properties. However, there are some difficulties in controlling
multiple process parameters towards achieving specific joint
requirements with good tensile strength, fracture toughness,
and residual stresses. Additionally, the high carbon contents
of advanced rail steels complicate the welding, increasing
8059
Fig. 1 – The growth front for (a) lamellar pearlite
transformation and (b) DET, (adapted from Verhoeven and
Gibson [9]).
hardenability and also the possibility of Fe3 C precipitation at
previous austenite grain boundaries (PAGBs).
Another critical point is the lower mechanical proper-
ties along the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ), due to changes
in the morphology of the eutectoid, caused by the hetero-
geneous distribution of temperatures during the welding
process. In the partial austenitization region, the eutectoid is
no longer pearlitic, with spheroidized cementite in a ferritic
matrix structure, leading to a decrease of the hardness and
consequently localized accelerated wear [7]. Nishikawa and
Goldenstein [8] explained the mechanism for this spheroidiza-
tion as a Divorced Eutectoid Transformation (DET). According
to Verhoeven and Gibson [9] and Pandit and Bhadeshia [10],
the DET occurs in the presence of austenite heterogeneities
near the eutectoid plateau, as when carbides stay undissolved
on the austenite matrix. During austenite decomposition, in
some regions cooperative transformation (␥ ␣+Fe3 C lamel-
lar) occurs, while in other regions a non-cooperative eutectoid
transformation occurs, where the front of transformation
austenite/ferrite redistributes carbon atoms and thickens car-
bides, as shown in Fig. 1.
Duvel and Mutton [11] pointed out that defects such as
spalling and squats are formed in the HAZ. As an attempt
to reduce these problems, Saita, Ueda, and Miyazaki [7] have
shown that reducing the width of the spheroidized region is
an effective method. However, the decrease in width of the
spheroidized region generates an increase on the tensile resid-
ual stress in web region. The authors proposed some solutions,
such as: (1) post-weld heat treatments by inductive heating of
the rail head and (2) reducing the heat input (pulse current,
number of pulses and time) in the preheating and flashing
stages, as well as increasing the plastic deformation in the
longitudinal direction, during the upsetting step.
Alves et al. [12] designed an experimental array according
to the Taguchi method, to obtain mathematical models for
optimizing the HAZ properties. Both Saita, Ueda, and Miyazaki
[7] and Alves et.al [12] concluded that the heat input must be
decreased and the upsetting force increased to improve weld
quality.
The purpose of the current paper is to understand the role
of the welding parameters on the microstructure (interlamel-
lar spacing and pearlite colonies size) and on the mechanical
properties of welded joints using FBW on Premium (heat-
treated eutectoid C ≤ 0.8 wt.% C, 350–450 BHN) and Super
8060 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073

Table 1 – Chemical composition (wt. %), (adapted from Table 3 – Taguchi array of the welding conditions and its
Alves et al. [12]). interactions, (adapted from Alves et al. [12]).
Rail C Mn Si P S Cr Welding Rail type Parameters
condition
Premium 0.79 1.01 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.24
Super Premium 0.95 1.23 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.28 A B AB C AC BC D

C1 Premium 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C2 Super Premium 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
Table 2 – Welding parameters and the minimum and C3 Super Premium 1 2 2 1 1 2 2
maximum values, (adapted from Alves et al. [12]). C4 Premium 1 2 2 2 2 1 1
Parameters Minimum values (1) Maximum values (2) C5 Super Premium 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
C6 Premium 2 1 2 2 1 2 1
A Pulse current 60 kA 80 kA C7 Premium 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
B number of pulses 8 13 C8 Super Premium 2 2 1 2 1 1 2
C Upset force 550 kN 650 kN
D Rail type Premium Super Premium

Premium rails (heat-treated hypereutectoid C > 0.9 wt.% C,

380–460 BHN) [13].

2. Experimental Procedure

2.1. Chemical composition

The chemical compositions were obtained using optical

emission spectrometry techniques. Chemical analysis were
conducted in the longitudinal section of the rail head. The
chemical compositions of Premium and Super Premium rails
are shown in Table 1. Both steels are in accordance with the
AREMA standard specification [1]. It can be noticed that Super Fig. 2 – Scheme of samples extraction.
Premium rail corresponds to a higher carbon, hypereutectoid
composition.

2.3. Microstructural characterization

2.2. Definition of the welding parameters and
conditions
The experiments were carried out at a railroad company facil-
ity in Brazil. All welds were carried out in accordance with
the company’s operating procedures. The welding parame-
ters and their magnitudes (minimum and maximum values)
were selected based on the extreme values of the range
recommended by the welding machine manufacturers. The
parameters chosen were: (A) pulse current; (B) number of
pulses; (C) upset force (D) rail type. The minimum and maxi-
mum values of the four parameters are shown in Table 2.
An experimental design Taguchi of orthogonal arrays was
used to perform the welds and to evaluate the effect of welding
parameters, individually and grouping, in the microstructures
and mechanical properties [12]. Eight different welding condi-
tions were obtained by changing the four welding parameters,
as shown in Table 3.
The array shows the interaction between the welding
parameters. However, the rail type was not evaluated in terms
of the interactions with the other welding parameters, as the
objective was to evaluate process parameters [12]. For each
welding condition four repetitions were made, totalizing 32
samples.
All samples were extracted from the longitudinal section of
the rail head so that the entire HAZ region and base metal were
included, as shown in Fig. 2. Scanning Electron Microscopy
(SEM) (FEG - FEI, Inspect F50® ) was used to characterize the
formation of each microconstituent in the weld region and
the base metal of all welding conditions.
Metallographic samples were ground with 100# to 1200#
sandpaper, polished with 6 ␮m, 3 ␮m, and 1 ␮m diamond paste
and finished using colloidal silica (0.1 ␮m). Etching was carried
out in Nital 2% (ethanol + 2% HNO3 ).
2.3.1. Measurement of pearlite colony sizes and
interlamellar spacing
A pearlite colony is defined as the region of the microstruc-
ture in which the ferrite and cementite lamellae are arranged
alternately and parallel to one another, resulting in a common
growth direction during the reaction ␥ ␣+Fe3 C. The min-
imum distance between the cementite lamellae defines the
interlamellar spacing [14].
Among the four welds made for each welding condition,
two samples were chosen to perform the measurements. Five
images were made, totaling ten images for each measured
region (grain growth region, grain refined region and base
metal).
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073 8061

To achieve high contrast at the interface between the

pearlite colonies, the acceleration voltage of the SEM was set
at 10 kV and the working distance used was between 6–8 mm,
according to the recommendations made by Guo and Liu [15].
To analyze the size of the colony in the grain growth
region, a magnification of 5 000X was used, while for the
grain refined and base metal regions 10 000X was used. The
interface between the pearlite colonies were outlined in the
ImageJ® software. The average size of pearlite colonies was
determined according to the ASTM E112 [16] grain size com-
parison method. Parallel lines were outlined on the image and
the number of colonies per unit length was measured. Colony
size - D(colony) - for the average length of intercepted lines (L)
was determined using Eq. 1:

Fig. 3 – Scheme for samples extraction to tensile test.

D (colony) = 1.571 x L (1)

To determine the average interlamellar spacing, images

were obtained with a magnification of 40 000 × . Lines Table 4 – Mechanical properties of base metal of Premium
perpendicular to the lamellae were randomly drawn over and Super Premium rail steels, (adapted from Alves et al.
[12]).
the regions of interest, as recommended by Underwood [17]
and Van der Voort and Roosz [18]. To obtain interlamel- Rail type YS - Yield UTS - EF -
lar spacing averages, the number of cementite lamellae per strength Ultimate Elongation to
(MPa) tensile fracture (%)
unit length was counted. The selection of the region with
strenght
the interlamellar spacing consistent with the microstruc-
(MPa)
ture was chosen by observing the region with the smallest
interlamellar spacing. According to Krauss [19], this proce- Premium 905 1160 9.8
Super Premium 914 1392 10.3
dure ensures that the cutting plane is perpendicular to the
lamellae.
the entire HAZ and the base metal, as shown in Fig. 3. The
2.3.2. Phase quantifications mechanical properties of the base metals of Premium and
The intercept method was used to quantify the volume frac- Super Premium rail steels are show in Table 4:
tions of the phases [20]. This method consists of counting the
number of points of the grid that falls upon the phases to be 2.5. Fracture analysis
quantified, divided by the total points of the grid.
For all the welds conditions, the volume fractions of proeu- According to the Metals Handbook Fractography and Atlas of
tectoid ferrite on the centerline of the weld and spheroidized Fractographs [23] recommendations, the fracture examination
Fe3 C in the partial austenitization region were quantified. followed the sequence:
To standardize the quantification of the volume fraction of
spheroidized Fe3 C, micrographs were taken in the regions 1) Visual inspection to get a global understanding of the frac-
of lower hardness. For each region, five micrographs were ture mechanism;
taken, with magnifications of 1 000x and 20 000x, respec- 2) Macroscopic fracture classification;
tively. 3) Microscopic fracture classification. Also, the path of
the fracture (transgranular or intergranular) and its
2.4. Mechanical properties microstructural characteristics were determined.

2.4.1. Vickers microhardness mapping
Following ASTM E92 [21], Vickers microhardness maps were
made on properly ground and polished longitudinal sections
of the rail head, at the weld. The indentations were made fol-
lowing a rectangular mesh 10 mm below the rail head surface.
The applied load was 0.3 kg for 15 s and the distance between
each indentation was 0.4 mm.
Examination of the fracture surface was carried out using a
FEG - SEM, FEI – Inspect F50 electron microscope. Longitudinal
sections neighboring the fracture surface were also examined
for the investigation of the influence of microstructure on frac-
ture propagation.
2.6. Statistical analysis

2.4.2. Tensile test To compare the averages obtained in the measurements of

The tensile tests were performed on a 300 kN universal testing
machine, at a strain rate of 5 mm/min. Cylindrical sam-
ples 12.0 mm in diameter and a gage length of 107.5 mm
were machined according to ASTM E8 standard [22]. For each
welding condition, four samples were extracted, involving
pearlite colony sizes, interlamellar spacing, and mechanical
properties, the Tukey test was performed in the Minitab® soft-
ware. The analysis consists of comparing the averages of a
given population in pairs and verifying whether they differ
from the general average. If the average pairs are statistically
8062 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073

Fig. 4 – Microstructural characterization of a typical welded joint of Premium and Super Premium rails. (a) Centerline of
weld of Premium rails (proeutectoid ferrite films are indicated in red arrows); (b) Partial austenization region of Premium
rails (Fe3C spheroidized and pearlite are indicated in blue circle). (c) Base metal of Premium rails (proeutectoid ferrite are
indicated in yellow arrows); (d) Centerline of weld of Super Premium rails (proeutectoid ferrite films are indicated in red
arrows). (e) Partial austenization region of Super Premium rails (Fe3C spheroidized and pearlite are indicated in blue circle)
and (f) Base metal of Super Premium rails (proeutectoid Fe3C are indicated in yellow arrow).

different, the values are highlighted in red on the generated

graph. The test validates, with 95% confidence, that the results
3. Results and discussion
are statistically relevant.
To verify the relationship between the welding parame-
3.1. Microstructural characterization of the welded
ters, the variation in the size of the pearlite colonies and the
joint
interlamellar spacing in the grain growth and grain refined
The microstructural characterization of the welded joints pre-
regions, multiple regressions were made and the equations
sented five different regions: centerline of the weld, grain
representing the existing relationships were obtained using
growth, grain refined, partial austenitization (spheroidized
the Minitab® software.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073 8063

Fig. 5 – (a) Volume fraction of proeutectoid ferrite on the centerline region. (b) Volume fraction of spheroidized Fe3 C on the
partial austenitization region.

Fig. 6 – (a) Measurement of pearlite colonies size and (b) measurement of interlamellar spacing for all welding conditions.
(GC: Grain Growth; GR: Grain refined; BM: Base metal).

Fig. 7 – Tukey’s statistical analysis for pearlite colony sizes, with 95% reliability index. If a range does not contain zero, the
corresponding averages will be significantly different. (a) grain growth region, (b) grain refined region and (c) base metal.
8064 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073
Fig. 8 – Tukey’s statistical analysis for interlamellar spacing, with 95% reliability index. If a range does not contain zero, the
corresponding averages will be significantly different. (a) grain growth region; (b) grain refined region; (c) base metal.
Fe3 C or divorced eutectoid) and the base metal, as character-
ized by Mansouri and Mounshi [24].
The formation of thin pearlite and proeutectoid ferrite
films (red arrows) is observed at the centerline of the weld
of the Premium rails (C1, C4, C6, and C7), as shown Fig. 4 (a).
Proeutectoid ferrite formation occurs due to the high tempera-
ture reached in the welding process, generating a decarburized
layer. Micenko and Li [25] pointed out that decarburization is
usual in the FBW process and normally does not affect the
mechanical properties of the welded joint.
In the partial austenitization region of Premium rails, the
formation of a divorced eutectoid was also noticed. In this
region, Fe3 C particles appear as spheres precipitated in a fer-
ritic matrix, coexisting with a few fine pearlite colonies, as
observed in Fig. 4 (b), highlighted with a blue circle. Saita,
Ueda, and Miyazaki [7] and Porcaro et al. [26] showed the for-
mation of spheroidized Fe3 C in the limit of the heat affected
zone. Nishikawa and Goldenstein [8] showed, using dilato-
metric experiments, that in rail steels, Fe3 C spheroidization is
associated with partial austenitization and divorced eutectoid
transformation.
The base metal region of Premium rails is com-
posed of proeutectoid ferrite (yellow arrows) and thin
pearlite, as shown in Fig. 4 (c). According to Krauss
[19], the formation of proeutectoid ferrite is related
to the ratio wt.%C/wt.%Mn. Therefore, decreasing the
contents of carbon and manganese, the greater the
tendency for nucleating proeutectoid ferrite in grain
boundaries.
The centerline of the weld of the Super Premium rails (C2, C3,
C5 and C8), showed the formation of fine pearlite and proeu-
tectoid ferrite films (red arrows), as shown in Fig. 4 (d), similar
to the microstructure observed in this region in the Premium
rails.
In the partial austenitization region of the Super Pre-
mium rails, it is possible to observe the formation of the
divorced eutectoid. The microstructure of this region
is composed of spheroidized Fe3 C precipitated in a fer-
ritic matrix coexisting with regions of fine pearlite,
as observed in Fig. 4 (e), evidenced with a blue cir-
cle.
In the base metal region, the predominant microstructure
is characterized by the formation of proeutectoid Fe3 C (yellow
arrow) at PAGB and fine pearlite, as shown in Fig. 4 (f). To jus-
tify the formation of proeutectoid Fe3 C at grain boundaries,
Bramfitt, Fletcher, and Davis [27] suggested two hypotheses:
first, the cooling rate used in the rail manufacturing process
was not sufficient to suppress the formation of proeutectoid
Fe3 C, or the addition of the alloying elements was not suffi-
cient to react with the excess carbon, favoring the nucleation
and growth of Fe3 C particles, before the eutectoid reaction.
The quantification of the volume fraction of proeutec-
toid ferrite in the centerline of the weld region showed
that, Premium rails presented higher proeutectoid ferrite vol-
ume fractions than Super Premium rails, as shown in Fig. 5
(a). The fraction of proeutectoid ferrite is related to the
carbon contents ratio between Premium and Super Premium
rails. The higher the initial carbon content (Super Premium
rails), the lower the decarburization, so the centerline of
the weld region of Super Premium rails will reach a local
chemical composition close to the eutectoid (slightly hypoeu-
tectoid). Meanwhile the Premium rails, when decarburized,
will reach a lower carbon hypoeutectoid chemical composi-
tion.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073
Fig. 9 – Vickers microhardness maps for Premium rails. (a) Welding condition C1, (b) Welding condition C4, (c) Welding
condition C6 and (d) Welding condition C7.
The Super Premium rails presented the largest volume frac-
tions of spheroidized Fe3 C at the partial austenitization region,
when compared to the Premium rails, as shown in Fig. 5 (b).
According to the results obtained by Honda and Saito [28],
the increase in carbon content favors the divorced eutectoid
reaction.
The divorced eutectoid formation occurs in the cooling
stage after the welding of the rails. The temperature gradi-
ent along the welded joint causes incomplete austenitization
near the end of the HAZ, leaving undissolved carbides in the
austenitic matrix, inducing the divorced eutectoid formation
during the subsequent cooling.
According to Verhoeven and Gibson [9], increased cool-
ing rates favors the formation of the cooperative growth (␥
␣+Fe3 C lamellar), while decreasing the cooling rate near the
eutectoid temperature increases the propensity to form a
divorced eutectoid reaction.
3.1.1. Measurements of pearlite colonies and interlamellar
spacing
Figs. 6 (a) and (b) show the results of pearlite colony size and
interlamellar spacing on the grain growth, grain refined and
base metal regions, respectively.
8065
The largest pearlite colony size was found in grain growth
region when compared to the grain refined and the base metal
regions. This occurs because the temperature peak is high,
when compared to the other regions of the weld. The high
temperature reached favors diffusive processes, facilitating
the growth of colonies.
Comparing the size of the pearlite colonies in the grain
growth region, for the extreme welding conditions, C1 that
used the parameters at their minimum values and C8 at their
maximum values, one can observe a 15% reduction in the size
of the colonies. In the grain refined region, one can see that
the colony size reduction was only 2.5% (for extreme welding
conditions). In the base metal region, there were no signifi-
cant variations. In this case, the size of the pearlite colonies
depends on the austenitization temperature and the cooling
rate used in the rail manufacturing process.
According to Tukey’s test, it is observed that, even though
there is a variation in the pearlite colonies size due to
the change of the welding parameters, the average values
obtained are statistically equal, as shown in Fig. 7.
According to the Minitab® software, eq. (2) defines the
influence of welding parameters on the size of pearlite
8066 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073
Fig. 10 – Vickers microhardness maps for Super Premium rails. (a) Welding condition C2, (b) Welding condition C3, (c)
Welding condition C5 and (d) Welding condition C8.
colonies for the grain growth region, where B is the number of
pulses. For the grain refined region, no term was entered into
the equation. In this case, there was no relationship between
the welding parameters and the variation on the size of the
pearlite colonies.
Pearlite colony (grain growth) = 20.82 + 1.31B
The grain growth region presented smaller interlamellar
spacing when compared to the grain refined region. This
occurs due to the larger previous austenitic grain in the grain
growth region, when compared to the grain refined region.
Larger austenitic grain size means less grain boundary area
and consequently less pearlite nucleation sites, displacing the
eutectoid transformation to lower temperatures, producing
smaller interlamellar spacing and larger pearlite colony size
on continuously cooled steels [19,26].
This result is reflected on the empirical equation for YS
of pearlite as function of the interlamellar spacing, pearlite
colony size, and austenite grain size obtained by Hyzak and
Bernstein [29].
Comparing the interlamellar spacing only at the grain
growth region, it is noted that, when comparing the extreme
welding conditions (C1 and C8), there was a reduction in the
interlamellar spacing of 20%. In the grain refined region, when
comparing the extreme welding conditions, the interlamel-
lar spacing reduction was 44%. In the base metal region, the
results showed significant variations. In this case, the inter-
(2)
lamellar spacing depends on the austenitization temperature
and the cooling rate in the rail manufacturing process.
The Tukey tests to interlamellar spacings at the grain
growth region showed that there were significant variations
between the averages obtained for some cases (C1-C8, C3-C8,
C4-C8, C5-C8, C6-C8 and C7-C8), as highlighted in red in Fig. 8
(a). In addition, it is observed in the grain refined region, that
the Tukey tests shows a greater tendency to have statistical
differences between the most extreme welding conditions,
however, there were some disparities in some intermediate
conditions, as shown in Fig. 8 (b).
In general, the results showed that increasing the weld-
ing parameters significantly affects the interlamellar spacing,
which may be detrimental to the mechanical and tribological
properties of the welded joint. Considering that the reduction
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073 8067

Fig. 11 – Mechanical properties C1 to C8 welding conditions. (a) Ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and yield strength (YS). (b)
Elongation to fracture (EF) and reduction of area (RA).

Fig. 12 – Tukey’s statistical analysis for mechanical properties, with 95% reliability index. If a range does not contain zero,
the corresponding averages will be significantly different. (a) ultimate tensile strength (UTS), (b) yield strength (YS), (c)
elongation to fracture (EF) and (d) reduction of area (RA).

of interlamellar spacing is required to improve the weld joint lamellar spacing of the grain growth and grain refined regions,
properties, it can be stated that the welding conditions C1 and respectively. In eqs. (3) and (4), A is the pulse current, B is the
C2 are the most appropriate for obtaining welded joints with number of pulses, C is the upsetting force, D is the equivalent
properties close to those desired. carbon, and the rest are the interactions between parameters.
These results are in agreement with the conclusions
obtained by Saita, Ueda, and Miyazaki [7] and Alves et al. [12],
who showed that, decreasing the heat input and increasing Interlamelar spacing (grain growth) = 0.11 + 0.004A + 0.004C
the upset force was more adequate to obtain a good welded
joints. + 0.02D2 + 0.003AxB + 0.003BxD (3)
Also, it can be observed that changes of the welding param-
eters influenced much more the interlamellar spacing than
pearlite colony sizes.
Eqs. (3) and (4), obtained using the Minitab® software, Interlamelar spacing (grain refined) = 0.17 − 0.01A + 0.04D
describe the influence of welding parameters on the inter- + 0.29AxB + 0.01AxC + 0.01BxC − 0.28CxD (4)
8068 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073

Fig. 13 – Macroscopic appearance of the fracture of Premium and Super Premium rails. (a) Representing the welding
conditions C1, C4, C6 and C8 (ductile fracture); (b) Representing the welding conditions C2 (brittle fracture); (c) Representing
the welding conditions C3 and C5 (double-necking with brittle fracture appearance). In addition, this figure represents two
samples of welding condition C6.

Fig. 14 – Fractography analysis of the surface from Premium rails after the tensile tests. (a) ductile fracture – pearlite dimples
and (b) ductile/brittle fracture – dimples and cleavage.
3.2. Mechanical properties
3.2.1. Microhardness vickers mapping
The microhardness maps of the welded joints, for the differ-
ent welding conditions, of the Premium and Super Premium rail
steels are shown in Fig. 9 and 10, respectively.
The Premium rails showed a decrease in hardness more vis-
ible in the centerline weld region than Super Premium rails. As
previously shown in Fig. 5 (a), the decrease of hardness in the
center of the weld occurs due to different volume fractions of
proeutectoid ferrite as a function of the rail grade.
Near to the centerline of the weld, an increase in hard-
ness (for all microhardness maps) is observed, relative to other
regions of the welded joint. As previously observed in Fig. 6
(b), the increase in hardness is due to the decrease in the
interlamellar spacing in the grain growth region. This result is
more evident for Super Premium rails due to the higher carbon
content and a higher volume fraction of lamellar Fe3 C.
The decrease of hardness in the partial austenitization
regions is highlighted in different shades of blue on the
microhardness maps. The hardness decreases progressively,
starting with the softer blue tone, until it reaches the darker
blue region, which corresponds to the partial austenitization
region where a larger decrease of hardness occurs. This region
corresponds to the largest volume fraction of spheroidized
Fe3 C. The abrupt decrease of hardness at the partial austeniti-
zation is justified by the occurrence of the divorced eutectoid
transformation, as observed in the microstructural character-
ization of both rail grades and described by Nishikawa and
Goldenstein [8].
In addition, it is observed that the width of the partial
austenitization region is affected by the change in welding
parameters. Comparing the most extreme welding conditions
(C1 and C8), it is noted that the width of this region increased
by approximately 77%.
These results are in agreement with those published by
Saita, Ueda, and Miyazaki [7] and Alves et al. [12]. In other
words, when using the most extreme welding parameters (C8),
the width of this region tends to increase.
According to the wear tests performed by Saita, Ueda, and
Miyazaki [7], the increase of the width of the partial austeni-
tization region is detrimental to the mechanical properties of
the rails in the welded joint region. In contrast, by reducing the
width of the partial austenitization region, the tensile resid-
ual stresses in the web rail region increases. In this case, the
authors proposed the use of post-welding heat treatments.
3.2.2. Tensile tests
Fig. 11 (a) shows the results of ultimate tensile strength (UTS)
and yield strength (YS). When compared the UTS of the
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073 8069

Fig. 15 – Micrograph of the longitudinal section, normal to the fracture surface of Premium rails. (a) represents the ductile
fracture. (b) shows the ductile/brittle fracture (welding condition C6).

Fig. 16 – Fractography analysis by SEM of Super Premium rails. (a) welding condition C2: brittle fracture between centerline of
weld and HAZ, (b) welding conditions C3 and C5: double-necking on the partial austenitization region, with mixed
ductile/brittle fracture outside necking and, (c) welding condition C8: ductile fracture.

extreme values obtained, the reduction was approximately
11.8%, where the welding condition C2 presented the high-
est UTS (1121 MPa), while C8 presented the lowest value (989
MPa).
Furthermore, when comparing the YS of the extreme weld-
ing conditions, C8 with YS 753 MPa and C3 with 890 MPa, we
see that the reduction was approximately 15.4%.
Moreover, the welding condition C8 showed a reduc-
tion of 29% of UTS when compared to the respective base
metal (Super Premium). The YS also decreased by 17.6%
when compared to the respective base metal (Super Pre-
mium).
The use of welding parameters at their maximum values
increased the width of the partial austenitization region, as
observed in the Vickers microhardness tests and explained by
Alves et al. [12] The consequence of this result was a reduction
of YS and UTS of the welded joint, as observed for the welding
condition C8.
8070 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073

Fig. 17 – Micrograph of the longitudinal section of the fracture of Super Premium rails. (a) Represent the brittle fracture of
welding condition C2. (b) Ductile/brittle fracture of welding conditions C3 and C5, with intergranular fracture on the
previous austenite grain boundary. (c) Represent the region necked and non-fractured of welding conditions C3 and C5 and,
(d) Ductile fracture of welding condition C8.

Fig. 11 (b) presents the results obtained for the mechan-
ical properties of elongation to fracture (EF) and reduction
of area (RA). The welding condition C8 presented the
largest ER (6.9%) and RA (26.5%) among all welding con-
ditions. The evident increase in ductility is due to the
largest width of partial austenitization region, as shown in
Fig. 10 (d). Additionally, the welding condition C8 has the
largest volume fraction of spheroidized Fe3 C, as reported
in Fig. 5 (b).
The Tukey’s test for YS and RA (%) were similar for all cases,
corresponding to the YS of the partial austenitization region
(prevalent spheroidized microconstituent). On the other hand,
the Tukey’s test for UTS and EF (%) in some cases were sta-
tistically different. Specifically, when comparing the more
extreme welding conditions the differences was pointed out
(Fig. 12).
3.3. Fracture analyses of the tensile tests specimens
3.3.1. Macroscopic aspects
Fig. 13 shows the aspect of the tensile tested samples of
Premium and Super Premium rails. The Premium samples fail
by a predominantly ductile fracture mechanism, as seen in
Fig. 13 (a). However, two samples of the welding condition C6
underwent brittle fracture, as shown in Fig. 13 (c). In general,
the Premium samples presented double-necking in the par-
tial austenitization region, and in some cases, “cup and cone”
fractures were observed.
On the other hand, Super Premium rails failed due to brittle
mechanisms, with the exception of the most extreme welding
condition (C8), which fractured by ductile mechanisms.
All the samples of the C2 (Super Premium) welding con-
dition broke between the centerline of weld and the partial
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073
austenitization region, with a straight fracture surface, with-
out necking, as shown in Fig. 13 (b).
The samples of welding conditions C3 and C5 showed
double-necking in the partial austenitization regions but did
not break at the necking region: brittle fracture occurred out-
side the necked area, as shown in Fig. 13 (c). Based on these
results, it was hypothesized that it might be occurring some
kind of embrittlement during the cooling step, specifically
between the HAZ limits and base metal region.
Although, the samples began to plastically deform in the
partial austenitization region producing double-necking, in
both sides of the welding, they fractured outside the HAZ,
showing that the breaking strength of the material in the base
metal region was smaller than in the spheroidized area.
The samples of welding condition C8 fractured in the
partial austenitization region, exhibiting double-necking, as
shown in Fig. 13 (a). Among all Super Premium rails, this welding
condition was the only one showing the ductile fracture mech-
anism in 75% of the samples, contrary to the results obtained
for the Super Premium rails.
The welding condition C8 presented the lowest YS and
UTS, and the highest EF (%) and RA (%) values. The results
obtained in the uniaxial tensile tests, show that the use of
welding parameters at their maximum values can change the
fracture mechanism of a Super Premium rail steel. In addition,
the increased width of the partial austenitization region also
contributed to the change in the fracture mechanism.
3.3.2. Fracture surface
The fracture micromechanism for almost all Premium rails (C1,
C4, C6, and C7) was ductile, as shown in Fig. 14 (a). Ductile dim-
ples originated at the ferrite-cementite lamellae interfaces
inside pearlite can be observed. On other hand, two samples
related to the welding condition C6 showed a mixed mode of
fracture, where both cleavage facets and ductile dimples can
be observed, as shown in Fig. 14 (b).
The longitudinal sections of the ductile fractures showed
that fracture occurred in the partial austenitization region,
presenting a microstructure composed by spheroidized Fe3 C
+ pearlite. Microvoids were also observed in these sections, as
shown in Fig. 15 (a). In contrast, transgranular fracture can also
be seen in the transition zone between the HAZ and the base
metal (longitudinal sections of welding condition C6), which
presented a microstructure composed of fine pearlite and few
traces of spheroidized Fe3 C, as shown in Fig. 15 (b).
The fracture micromechanism related to the welding con-
dition C2 (Super Premium) was brittle, as shown in Fig. 16 (a),
indicating the formation of cleavage facets and some regions
with cracks accompanying the pearlite colony boundaries.
Mixed ductile/brittle fracture micromechanism were
observed for the welding conditions C3 and C5 (Super Premium);
dimples and cleavage facets can be seen on the fracture sur-
face in Fig. 16 (b).
The welding condition C8 presents ductile fracture mecha-
nisms, being the only welding condition for the Super Premium
rails that fractured in this mode. In Fig. 16 (c) one can see the
formation of dimples in the HAZ.
8071
The longitudinal section, normal to the fracture surface of
the welding condition C2 (Super Premium), shows that the frac-
ture occurred outside the partial austenitization region, where
spheroidized Fe3 C could not be seen. The microstructure in the
fracture region is composed of fine pearlite and proeutectoid
Fe3 C precipitated at PAGBs, as shown in Fig. 17 (a). The fracture
occurred in the transition region between the centerline of the
weld and the grain refined region. In this case, Fe3 C formation
in the PAGBs favored the fracture, even though there were two
spheroidized regions.
Necking occurred for the welding conditions C3 and C5 in
the less resistant spheroidized region, as shown in Fig. 17 (c).
Notwithstanding, despite the decrease in the necked area and
consequent local increase in stress, the fracture did not occur
at these regions; in both welding conditions failure occurred
just outside the HAZ. It is noteworthy that fracture occurred
between the base metal and HAZ region, with a microstruc-
ture composed by fine pearlite and proeutectoid Fe3 C films
precipitated at PAGBs, as shown in Fig. 17 (b). These results
agree with those obtained by Bramfitt, Fletcher, and Davis [27]
pointing out that in hypereutectoid rails, the presence of Fe3 C
precipitated at PAGBs is not desirable, due to its hard and brit-
tle characteristics, leading to embrittlement. Although Super
Premium rails (C3 and C5) presented a mixed ductile/brittle
fracture mechanism, one can say that the Fe3 C films precipi-
tated at grains boundaries support the main hypothesis of the
cause of the brittle fracture.
Considering that the fracture, in this case, occurred out-
side the HAZ, one can suppose that the embrittlement
process occurred ate temperatures below 710 ◦ C (according
to Nishikawa and Goldenstein [8] simulations).Segregation of
impurities may occur at PAGBs, causing intergranular fracture.
Segregation is associated with ẗemper embrittlement,̈ which
can occur during slow cooling, at a temperature near 600 ◦ C,
or isothermally within this temperature range, as previously
discussed by Olefjord [30] and also reported in rail materials
by Bhadeshia [31]. Therefore, this hypothesis cannot be dis-
carded and future studies are needed for better understanding
this phenomenon.
Finally, the longitudinal section of the fractured samples of
the welding condition C8 shows that the fracture occurred in
the partial austenitization region, as shown in Fig. 17 (d). The
micrograph of the longitudinal section indicates the formation
of microvoids in a spheroidized microstructure.
4. Conclusions
1 Welded joints of Premium and Super Premium rail steels
have five different regions: (1) centerline of weld (Premium
rails have a larger decrease of hardness than the Super
Premium rails due to the difference in proeutectoid ferrite
volume fraction); (2) grain growth; (3) grain refined; (4) par-
tial austenitization or divorced eutectoid; and (5) base metal
(Premium rails presented pearlite + proeutectoid ferrite
microstructure and Super Premium rails presented pearlite
+ proeutectoid Fe3C at PAGBs).
8072 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073
2 Comparing the extreme welding conditions as a function of
variations in the size of pearlite colonies and interlamellar
spacing, it can be concluded that: decreasing the heat input
reduces 15% the size of pearlite colonies in the grain growth
and 2.5% in the grain refined region. Moreover, the reduc-
tion of the heat input decreased the interlamellar spacing by
20% in the grain growth region and 44% in the grain refined
region. Thus, the effects of changes in welding parame-
ters on interlamellar spacing were more sensitive than the
effects on pearlite colony sizes.
3 Welding parameters played an important role in increasing
or decreasing the width of the partial austenitization region.
It was noted that the width of the partial austenitization
region presented a difference of approximately 77% when
comparing the most extreme welding conditions (C1 and
C8).
4 The fracture mechanism of Premium rails was predomi-
nantly ductile, the samples presented double-necking and
rupture in the partial austenitization region. Super Pre-
mium rails presented predominantly brittle fracture, except
for the welding condition C8, which exhibited a predom-
inantly ductile fracture mechanism. Also, the welding
conditions C3 and C5 suffered double-necking on the par-
tial austenitization region, however, the brittle fracture
occurred outside the region of necking. In the fracture
region, it was possible to observe the precipitation of proeu-
tectoid Fe3C at PAGBs.
5 The microhardness maps showed that the welding condi-
tions C1 and C2 (lowest heat input) minimized the HAZ
size, while the largest HAZ was obtained for the weld-
ing condition C8 (highest heat input). The lowest UTS
and YS were obtained for the worst welding condition
(C8).
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Vale S.A and CAPES for funding this
work. Authors André P. Tschiptschin and Hélio Goldenstein
acknowledge partial support from CNPq. The contribution
of PMT - USP laboratory technicians Daniel Rodrigues, José
Rubens and Lívio Nunes are also acknowledged. The micro-
hardness maps were made at ITV, Instituto Tecnológico Vale
by PhD. student Gustavo Tressia.
references
[1] AREMA. Manual for railway engineering. American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association; 2010.
[2] ANTT. Anuário Estatístico do Setor Ferroviário. Minitério dos
Transportes. (2019). Available at:
http://www.antt.gov.br/ferrovias/arquivos/Anuario
Estatistico.html. (Accessed: 14th January 2020).
[3] Lewis R, Olofsson U. Wheel-rail interface handbook. Elsevier;
2009.
[4] Farhangi H, Mousavizadeh SM. Horizontal split-web
fractures of flash butt welded rails. In: Proceedings of the 8th
international fracture conference; 2007. p. 509–17.
[5] Fujii M, Nakanowatari H, Nariai K. Rail flash-butt welding
technology. JFE Steel Corp 2015;1.
[6] Ziemian CW, Sharma MM, Whaley DE. Effects of flashing and
upset sequences on microstructure, hardness, and tensile
properties of welded structural steel joints. Mater Des
2012;33:175–84.
[7] Saita K, Ueda M, Miyazaki T. Developing technologies to
improve the reliability of flash-butt welds. In: Grabe PJ,
Frohling RD, editors. International heavy haul association
Conference. 2017. p. 208–15.
[8] Nishikawa LP, Goldenstein H. Divorced Eutectoid on
Heat-Affected Zone of Welded Pearlitic Rails. JOM
2019;71:815–23.
[9] Verhoeven JD, Gibson ED. The divorced eutectoid
transformation in steel. Metall. Mater. Trans. A
1998;29:1181–9.
[10] Pandit AS, Bhadeshia H. Divorced pearlite in steels. Proc. R.
Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci 2012;468:2767–78.
[11] Duvel J, Mutton P. Rail requirements for 40 tonne axele loads.
In: International heavy haul association conference; 2005. p.
719–29.
[12] Alves LHD, Lagares ML, Filho RMM, Tepedino T, Goldenstein
H. Predictive mathematical modeling of the flash-butt
welding process to optimize the properties of welds of
premium and super premium rails. In: Kraik POL, Ahmadi A,
editors. International heavy haul STS Conference. 2019. p.
440–7.
[13] Joerg A, Eisenkolb B, Goriupp J, Zlatnik RH, Scheriau HPB.
Hypereutectoid rail steels - best in class and still to be
further developed. In International Heavy Haul Association
(IHHA); 2015.
[14] Elwazri AM, Wanjara P, Yue S. The effect of microstructural
characteristics of pearlite on the mechanical properties of
hypereutectoid steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2005;404:91–8.
[15] Guo N, Liu Q. Back-scattered electron imaging combined
with EBSD technique for characterization of pearlitic steels. J
Microsc 2012;246:221–8.
[16] ASTM. E112: standard test methods for determining average
grain size. West Conshocken; 1996. p. 4–20.
[17] Underwood EE. Stereology and quantitative metallography.
Metallography 1974;7.
[18] Vander Voort GF, Roosz A. Measurement of the interlamellar
spacing of pearlite. Metallography 1984;17:1–17.
[19] Krauss G. Steels : processing, structure, and performance.
Asm International; 2015,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s007690000247.
[20] Materials, A. S. for T. and. ASTM E562-11: standard test
method for determining volume fraction by systematic
manual point count. in (2011).
[21] ASTM. Standard test methods for Vickers hardness and
Knoop hardness of metallic. ASTM E92-16 2016;82:1–27.
[22] E8 A. Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic
materials. In: Annual book of ASTM standards. ASTM; 2001.
[23] Handbook A. ASM Handbook - Fractography vol. 12. Materials
Park (2nd printing, 1992); 1987.
[24] Mansouri H, Monshi A. Microstructure and residual stress
variations in weld zone of flash-butt welded railroads. Sci.
Technol. Weld. Join 2004;9:237–45.
[25] Micenko P, Li H. Double dip hardness profiles in rail weld
heat-affected zone: literature and research review report.
Brisbane, Aust 2013.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):8058–8073 8073

[26] Porcaro RR, et al. Microstructure and mechanical properties
of a flash butt welded pearlitic rail. J Mater Process Technol
2019;270:20–7.
[27] Bramfitt BL, Fletcher FB, Davis JA Jr. Method of making a
hypereutectoid, head-hardened steel rail; 2012.
[28] Honda K, Saito S. On the formation of spheroidal cementite.
J. Iron Steel Inst 1920;102:261–7.
[29] Hyzak JM, Bernstein IM. The role of microstructure on the
strength and toughness of fully pearlitic steels. Metall.
Trans. A 1976;7:1217–24.
[30] Olefjord I. Temper embrittlement. Int. Met. Rev
1978;23:149–63.
[31] Bhadeshia HKDH. High performance bainitic steels. Mater
Sci Forum 2005;500:63–74.

View publication stats