International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Fatigue

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Formation mechanism and evolution of white etching layers on different

rail grades
Ba Hieu Nguyen a, b, Ali Al-Juboori a, d, Hongtao Zhu a, b, *, Qiang Zhu c, Huijun Li a, Kiet Tieu a
a
Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Wollongong, New South Wales 2500, Australia
b
ARC Training Centre for Advanced Technologies in Rail Track Infrastructure, University of Wollongong, New South Wales 2500, Australia
c
Electron Microscopy Centre, University of Wollongong, New South Wales 2500, Australia
d
Middle Technical University, Technical Engineering College-Baghdad, Iraq

A B S T R A C T

White Etching Layers (WELs) were found to form on different rail grades in the railway networks across the world. The presentence of WELs on the rail promotes
rolling contact fatigue defects, which is detrimental to railway transportation safety. However, the formation and evolution of WELs on different rail grades are not
fully understood, as is their contribution to the formation of RCF defects on different rail grades. The extensive field monitoring, laboratory experiment, and material
characterization were carried out to systematically investigate the formation mechanism and evolution of WELs on Standard Carbon (SC) rail and Head Hardened
(HH) rail, which are widely used for passenger and freight transportation. The long-term field monitoring provides evidence that the formation and distribution of
WELs are influenced by repeated rolling contact during the service, and HH rail presents a susceptibility to form WELs more than SC rail. The characterization of
thermally induced WELs introduced by the laboratory Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) experiment indicates that WELs formed on HH rail lead in size and
hardness compared to SC rail. Both the WELs’ microstructures on SC and HH rails exhibit the ultra-fine plate-like martensite. However, there are isolated islands of
undissolved pearlite in the WELs on SC rail, while WELs on HH rail present remnants of cementite and trace of the lamellar feature. The formation kinetics of WELs on
different rail grades is significantly different due to the interlamellar variation in SC and HH rails, and the difference between the austenite growth rate and
dissolution rate of cementite.

1. Introduction
The rail is one of the most vital components to preserve railway
transportation safety and reduce maintenance costs. Rolling contact
fatigue (RCF) is one of the most common rail defects, which occurs on
the rail surface due to repeated wheel and rail contact. To withstand
severe conditions, rail material must have significant wear resistance,
high fatigue strength, and large resistance to brittle fracture [1]. Two
rail grades, including Standard Carbon (SC) rail and Head Hardened
(HH) rail, are widely installed in the railway networks for mixed pas­
senger and freight transport. The chemical compositions of SC and HH
rails are similar, while the mechanical properties are significantly
different, i.e., the tensile strength of 1130 MPa and hardness of 340 HB
for HH rails, and 880 MPa and 260 HB, respectively for SC rails [2]. SC
rails were more commonly used in the early days of the railway net­
works, showing a low resistance to wear. HH rails, produced by the heat
treatment process to achieve a more refined microstructure and higher
hardness, were developed to improve the performance of rails [1,3]. The
improved wear and RCF resistances of HH rails were proved in both
experimental studies and field applications [4–8]. According to
Steenbergen [3], the hardness close to 350 HV of HH rail is the optimal
hardness to minimize the rail wear and simultaneously enhance the RCF
resistance. Below this hardness, the rail wear is high enough to suppress
the initiation of RCF; while above this hardness, the RCF formation is
faster than the natural rail wear [3,6].
During its service, the rail surface is adversely affected by thermal
and/or mechanical excursions induced by cyclic wheel and rail rolling
contact. Consequently, the topmost layer of rail surface is under local
microstructure evolution and property changes to form White Etching
Layer (WEL), which is characterized by brittle nature and high hardness
over 700 HV, compared to rail matrix [9,10]. Accordingly, the WELs
have a high tendency for crack initiation. Metallurgical studies on ex-
service rails have confirmed a correlation between the WELs and the
formation of squat defects on the rails [9–16].
The formation mechanism of WELs was an interesting matter in
railway study for a few decades. Two mechanisms of WELs formation
have been proposed, including (1) mechanically induced by severe
plastic deformation and (2) thermally or thermomechanically induced
by phase transformation [3,12,13,16]. For the WELs generated by the
thermal process, the heat source on the rail surface could be wheel slip,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hongtao@uow.edu.au (H. Zhu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.107100
Received 5 April 2022; Received in revised form 14 June 2022; Accepted 23 June 2022
Available online 27 June 2022
0142-1123/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Hieu Nguyen et al.
Fig. 1. Track section of WELs formation and evolution monitoring on SC and HH rails.
Fig. 2. Experiment design for WELs formation by Arc welding.
braking/acceleration operations, or traction effort [17–19]. Electrical
leakage is another essential thermal source to generate WELs, particu­
larly in electrified railway networks [20]. Thermal action during the rail
grinding [3,11,21,22] or milling [23] processing also contributes to
WELs formation.
WELs were found on both SC rails and HH rails. WELs with a
thickness of about 10–35 µm were observed on R260 rail grade, near the
squat defect [14]. Several studies conducted on the ex-service HH rails
confirmed the existence of WELs on the rail surface [12,13,24,25].
Interestingly, there are controversial reports on the evolution of WELs of
different rail grades during their service. In a long-term field monitoring,
Deng et al. [26] found the formation of WELs on R260Mn rail grades
around one year after rail regrinding. However, Dikshit et al. [11]
observed that WELs were formed just a few weeks after the installation
of HH rails. Steenbergen [21] argued that WELs formed in both SC rail
and HH rail immediately after grinding. Rasmussen et al. [27] found
WELs with a thickness of about 0.25 mm on both R260 and R350HT
under the same wheel/rail contact conditions.
Thermally-induced WELs are martensite layers formed by the rapid
quenching after flash temperature rising above austenitization temper­
ature. The sufficient cooling rate for martensite formation is due to the
high thermal conductivity of the steel and the surface rapid thermal
dissipation into the environment. To estimate the rate and amount of
thermally-induced martensitic WELs on rails, Roosz et al. [28] imple­
mented the Avrami equation to investigate the austenitization
2
International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100
transformation from the pearlitic steel. It was found that the rates of
nucleation and grain growth are inversely proportional with the square
of interlamellar spacing of the initial pearlite structure. Messaadi et al.
[23] calculated the phase transformation rate for different rail grades
based on Roosz’s finding. As the interlamellar distance of R260Mn Rail
is twice times larger than that of R350HT Rail, the full austenitization
transformation rate of R260Mn is eight times slower than that of
R350HT at 760 ◦ C. Olejarczyk-Wozenska et al. [29] also indicated that
the pearlite-austenite transformation rate significantly increases when
interlamellar distance decreases.
Based on current literature, the formation and evolution of WELs on
different rail grades are not fully understood, as is their contribution to
the formation of RCF defects on different rail grades. In comparison with
HH rails, there is an argument that SC rails are a preferable candidate to
battle against RCF defects. This research aims to provide the essential
information by investigating the formation and evolution of the WELs on
two different rail grades, i.e., SC rail and HH rail via extensive field
monitoring for up to two years and six months and advanced laboratory
experiments. The present study can be beneficial to choose the proper
rail grades to control the rail defects and in designing a new generation
of rail materials for railway transportation.
B. Hieu Nguyen et al. International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100

Table 1 The field monitoring was conducted four times during a service
Four conditions of arcing energy inputs with different travel speeds, arcing period of two years and six months. The first monitoring was conducted
currents, and voltages. on August 17th, 2017 (548 days after re-railing). Rail grinding has been
Condition Travel speed Constant Voltage Total arc energy performed between the re-railing day and the first field observation. The
(mm/min) Current (A) (V) input (J/mm) second monitoring was conducted on October 28th, 2017 (620 days
1 576 18 12 22.5 after re-railing). The third monitoring was conducted on June 10th,
2 432 21 12 35 2018 (845 days after re-railing). The fourth monitoring was conducted
3 285 21 12 53 on August 19th, 2018 (915 days after re-railing). For each site inspec­
4 196 21 12 77
tion, the top surface of the examined track sections was thoroughly
cleaned and etched by Nital 2.5 vol% solution to reveal the WELs. The
2. Field monitoring and laboratory experiment formation and evolution of WELs on SC and HH rails were compared and
recorded. By combining the information, including annual tonnage (22
2.1. Field monitoring MGT), axel load (23 tons), and service time, the load cycles during the
interested service period can be calculated.
Squats are recognized as an important rail track issue related to
rolling contact fatigue. The narrow and brittle white etching layers on 2.2. Experiment design
rail surfaces promote the squat formation in rails. As the squat type of
RCFs occurs mainly on tangent tracks and shallow curves, a tangent The laboratory study was designed to investigate the formation
track near the station of an Australian railway network was selected for mechanisms of thermally-induced WELs of different rail grades, as well
long-term field monitoring, as shown in Fig. 1. The track testing site is as to determine the susceptibility of different rail grades to the
located at where the train just left the station; hence flash temperature thermally-induced WELs. The laboratory results were correlated with
rising on the rail surface is expected due to high traction force and large, the findings of the field monitoring.
which makes it an ideal location to investigate the evolution of As shown in Fig. 2, the formation of WELs on the different grades of
thermomechanically-induced WELs on rails [12,13]. The monitoring rail samples was implemented by performing Gas Tungsten Arc Welding
section was from the track located in New South Wales, Australia. The (GTAW) experiment. For each rail grade, samples with 100 (length) ×
annual tonnage and nominal axle load at this site are 22 million gross 25 (width) × 15 (thickness) mm3 prism-shaped sections were sectioned
tons and 23 tons, respectively. The train accelerates to reach the nominal from the top surface of the rail. Before sectioning and sampling, each rail
travel speed of 80 km/h. The rail for this track was 60 kg/m SC steel, as was examined and checked to ensure that the surface layer was free of
shown in the blue line in the Figure. However, the 25 m of the Up Rail pre-existing White Etching Layers. After sectioning, the surface of the
was replaced by HH steel (red line) on February 16th 2016. As the rail samples was slightly ground to 1200 SiC grit to remove all rush on
testing site could ensure the approximately same loading and traffic the top surface. The samples were moving along the fixed welding torch
conditions for the SC rail and HH rail simultaneously, it could be used to four times with different arc energy inputs, as shown in Table 1. Between
evaluate the formation and evolution of WELs on different rail grades. the tests for different arcing configurations, the samples were cooled in

Fig. 3. The Formation and Evolution of WELs from 1st to 4th field observation on (a-d) SC rail and (e-h) HH rail.

3
B. Hieu Nguyen et al.
Fig. 4. Optical Microscopy micrographs of WELs formed on SC rail. (a) Condition 1; (b) Condition 2; (c) Condition 3; (d) Condition 4 (the high magnificant of SEM
was shown in Fig. 7).
the air. Based on Rosenthal’s three-dimensional heat flow equation, a 5
mm interval distance between two arcing configurations was selected to
reduce the influence of the tempering effect from the previous arcing
test [30].
After laboratory study, the detailed material characterization was
carried out to investigate the structure, and microstructural features of
WELs formed on different rail grades by Light optical microscopy (OM),
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) using JEOL JSM-7001F and
Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) using JEOL JEM-F200 with
accelerating voltage of 200 kV. The micro-hardness was obtained by the
Matsuzawa Via-F automatic Vickers hardness tester at 200 g load. Thin
TEM samples were produced by FIB milling using FEI Helios NanoLab
G3 CX instruments.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Field monitoring of White Etching layers formation of SC and HH
rails
As shown in Fig. 3, four field tests were conducted at the track site to
investigate the evolution of WELs on different rail grades, i.e., 60 kg/m
SC and 60 kg/m HH rails.
After re-railing on February 16th 2016, the first field observation was
conducted on August 17th, 2017. After cleaning and etching by Nital
2.5 vol% solution, the distribution and formation of WELs were detec­
ted, as shown in Fig. 3a, e. As the rails at the testing site were ground a
4
International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100
short time before the first site visit, the grinding marks were still clearly
visible for both SC and HH rails, especially for HH rail due to its rela­
tively high hardness and large wear resistance. The rail top surfaces of
both SC and HH rails present four distinct regions along the longitudinal
direction, corresponding to the four rotational grinding stones used by
the rail grinding train. The WELs on the rail surfaces consisted of the
transverse WEL patches and longitudinal WEL bands. This observation is
similar to the observation in the field monitoring in the reference [22].
According to Rasmussen et al. [22], the longitudinal direction of the
WEL bands across the grinding marks indicated that it was originated
from the thermal action of repeated wheel/rail loadings rather than by
the grinding process. On the other hand, the correspondence of the di­
rection, shape, and dimension of transverse martensite patches to the
grinding marks indicated their origin from the thermal action caused by
the grinding process. In comparison with the WELs formation and evo­
lution between SC and HH rails, there is a discontinuous longitudinal
WELs band (4 mm wide) formed in the second grinding zone from the
field site; however, there is no longitudinal WELs in SC rails. Based on
the findings of first site investigation, HH rails present a susceptibility to
form WELs than SC rails at the early stage of service after grinding.
Fig. 3b, f show the surface morphology of the SC and HH rails, taken
at the second field observation conducted around two months after the
first field site visit. For both SC and HH rails, the grinding marks were
less visible due to the accumulated natural wear of the rails. Most of the
transverse WEL patches caused by grinding were worn away during this
period. Instead, a very narrow discontinuous longitudinal WEL band was
B. Hieu Nguyen et al. International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100

Fig. 5. Optical Microscopy micrographs of WELs formed on HH rail. a) Condition 1; b) Condition 2; c) Condition 3; d) Condition 4 (the high magnificant of SEM was
shown in Fig. 7).

Fig. 6. Scanning Electron Microscopy micrographs of original microstructure and magnified of pearlite matrix. (a), (c) SC rail; (b), (d) HH rail.

5
B. Hieu Nguyen et al.
Table 2
Interlamellar spacings measured in origin SC and HH rails.
Image HH sample (µm) SC sample (µm)
1 0.098 0.271
2 0.119 0.250
3 0.101 0.240
4 0.105 0.293
5 0.088 0.276
Average 0.102 0.266
found on the SC rail surface between the second and third grinding
marks, as shown in Fig. 3b. The 4 mm wide longitudinal WEL band on
HH rail observed in the first site visit was not worn away but became
4–6 mm wider and more uniform at the same position on the HH rail
surface, as shown in Fig. 3f. Combining the results of first and second site
investigations, it can be found that the WELs form and develop with the
loading history, and HH rails could generate severe longitudinal WEL
band in comparison with SC rails.
Fig. 3c, g present the WELs status on SC and HH rails after about ten
months from the second site investigation. The grinding marks and
relevant transverse WELs patches were worn off for SC rails, and became
much less visible for HH rails. On the SC rail surface (Fig. 3c), the narrow
discontinuous longitudinal WELs band has developed into a continuous
WEL band with a width of about 8–9 mm at the running band of the rail
surface after ten months’ service. On the HH rail surface (Fig. 3g), the
pre-existed 4–6 mm wide longitudinal WEL band becomes broader of 6
mm after the same duration and loading history of SC rails. Interestingly,
a new continuous longitudinal WEL band was formed neighboring the
pre-existed WEL band at the third grinding region, which is toward the
gauge side of the HH rail. The shafting of the running during the
extended service (ten months from the last site visit) could contribute to
the formation of 2nd longitudinal WEL band on HH rails. The formation
Fig. 7. Scanning Electron Microscopy micrographs of WELs in red boxes marked in Figs. 4 and 5. (a) SC rail; (b) HH rail.
Fig. 8. Micro hardness of WELs. a) SC rail; b) HH rail.
6
International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100
of 2nd longitudinal WEL band only on HH rails instead of SC rails further
confirms that HH rails present a susceptibility to form WELs than SC rails
during the long-term service.
Fig. 3d, h show the surface morphology evolution of the SC and HH
rail surfaces after another two months from the third site visit. As shown
in Fig. 3h, there are three longitudinal WEL bands on the HH rail surface.
The firstly formed longitudinal WEL bands at the 2nd grinding zone is
still existed at the same position and became wider of 9 mm in width.
Another longitudinal WEL band detected in the second site investigation
still existed in the 3rd grinding zone with a width of 7 mm (close to the
gauge side). A new longitudinal WEL band formed at the 1st grinding
zone (close to the field site). On the SC rail surface, as shown in Fig. 3d,
there was a new discontinuous longitudinal WEL band formed near the
field side of the rail, at the position where the 1st grinding marks are
located. The color of the etched WEL band at the SC Rail center became
brighter than that in the third site measurement, which could be caused
by the increased martensitic amount during the service. These findings
are consistent with simulation results by Lian et al. [31] that the volume
fraction of martensite increases during the passage of multiple train
passages.
The extensive site monitoring up to two years and six months from
re-railing provides solid evidence that the thermally induced WELs on
the rail was generated at the track where a relatively high traction force
occurred, such as close to the station. Service history plays a significant
role in the evolution of WELs on rails. The WELs were not removed by
the natural wear during the service; in contrast, they became broader
and more severe. Different rail grades present a significant variation in
the formation and evolution behaviors of WELs under the approximately
same loading and traffic conditions. HH rails could promote the WELs
more than SC rails during the long-term service, such as formed earlier
and grew faster in Fig. 3. From the previous study, the existence of the
thermally-induced WELs on the rail surface plays a crucial role in crack
B. Hieu Nguyen et al.
Fig. 9. Scanning Electron Microscopy observation of WELs formed by arcing condition 4 on (a), (e) SC rail and HH rail and magnified microstructure at the edge of
WEL (b), (f); center of WEL (c), (g) and WEL/pearlite interface (d), (h).
initiation and propagation [15]; it is essential to understand the for­
mation mechanism of WELs on the different rail grades by laboratory
experiment and metallurgical examination that were discussed in the
next session.
3.2. Formation mechanisms of white etching layers on SC and HH rails
Based on the field observation, it is interesting to note that WELs are
not only detected in the running band area of the rail surface but also in
adjacent regions. This observation suggests that accumulated plastic
7
International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100
ratcheting may not be the cause of the WELs. According to the literature
review, the thermally-induced WEL could be formed after a single train
passage [32]; and martensite percentage of WEL quickly accumulated
after multiple train passages [31]. In contrast, mechanically-induced
WEL is associated with severe plastic deformation, which requires mil­
lions of overstressing cycles and a long time to accumulate [33]. Based
on the site monitoring results, the longitudinal WEL bands were
observed to grow within a short period of service, which is consistent
with behaviors of thermally-induced WEL. Considering the high
braking/accelerating utilities at the monitoring site, therefore, it is
B. Hieu Nguyen et al.
Fig. 10. SEM micrographs at the center of WELs on (a) SC rail and (b) HH rail by arcing condition 4, and (c), (d) enlarged SEM-EDS line scans and their corre­
sponding data.
reasonable to come to conclude that the WELs in this track section was
the result of thermal action from frictional heating caused by micro slip
between the wheel and rail [12,13,34].
The twin-disc testing is preferred to simulate the wheel/rail contact
and investigate the fatigue damage. However, in twin-disc testing, it is
difficult to represent the thermal excursion (temperature rise) in the
field and reach the high flash temperature for phase transformation. In
the laboratory experiment, the simulated-WELs were induced by a
localized high temperature using arcing produced by the GTAW. The
moving frictional heat on the rail surface could be well simulated by the
mobility of the welding torch. Despite the fact that the heat source in the
field was different than that used in the laboratory experiment, both
WELs in the field and laboratory were thermally induced via the phase
transformation of the material on the rail surface. The previous study
[20] has confirmed the consistency of the microstructure and compo­
sition between the thermal-induced WELs on ex-service rails and WELs
produced in the laboratory by electrical arcing; therefore, the GTAW
experiment is appropriate and sufficient for the simulation of thermally-
induced WEL in the field.
3.2.1. WELs formation and its correlation with the interlamellar spacing of
pearlite
Electrical leakage between wheel and rail (arcing) is one of the
essential heat sources to generate thermally-induced WELs formation on
rails [20,35]. As discussed in Section 2.2, four configurations of arc
energy inputs by the GTAW experiment were employed to reveal the
8
International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100
formation mechanism of WELs on different rail grades and their
distinction. It is important to note that the actual energy of the leaking
current between the wheel and the rail is difficult to be measured, which
could be lighter than that in the laboratory GTAW.
Figs. 4 and 5 are microscopic images showing WELs formed on SC
and HH rail samples along the transverse plane of four different con­
figurations of energy inputs. For both SC and HH rail grades, the
microstructural observation shows that the width and thickness of WELs
gradually increased with the energy inputs. Comparing the character­
istic of WELs formation on SC and HH rails, the WELs formed on HH rail
have larger widths and thicknesses than that formed on SC rail under the
same conditions. At the lowest energy input (condition-1), the thickness
and width of WELs on SC rail are 28 µm and 342 µm, respectively;
whereas 87 µm and 727 µm on HH rail. At the highest energy input
(condition-4), the thickness and width of WELs significantly increased
from 68 µm and 896 µm on SC rail to 230 µm and 1901 µm on HH rails.
This finding is consistent with field monitoring that HH rail is more
susceptible to form WELs than SC rail.
It is crucial to understand why SC and HH rails display significantly
different behaviors for WELs’ formation. The thermally-induced WELs
on both SC and HH rails are the martensite layers driven by phase
transformation from pearlite to austenite due to the flash temperature
rising and subsequent phase transformation from austenite to martensite
during rapid cooling. The rate of phase transformation in pearlitic rail
steel depends on its microstructure, especially the interlamellar spacing
[23,28]. Fig. 6 reveals SEM micrographs of SC and HH rail samples close
B. Hieu Nguyen et al.
Fig. 11. Area of interest for the TEM sample preparation at WEL/pearlite interface on SC rail (a) and HH rail (b) and TEM micrographs for WELs formed on SC rail (c)
and HH rail (d) under arcing condition 4.
to the top surface. It can be found that both SC and HH rails are typical
pearlitic steels consisting of eutectoid lamellar ferrite and cementite.
The ferrite was dissolved and had a dark feature, while the cementite
remained and showed a white feature. The difference in the grain size of
the SC and HH rails is not significant. However, there is a large differ­
ence in the interlamellar spacings for the pearlitic structure of SC and
HH rails, i.e., 0.25 µm for SC rails and 0.12 µm for HH rails in Fig. 6.
The phase transformation from pearlite to austenite depends on the
austenite nucleation and growth [23,28]. Based on the Avrami equation,
the nucleation and growth rates are reciprocal of the square of inter­
lamellar spacing. Five measurements were taken for both SC and HH rail
samples to obtain accurate average interlamellar spacings of SC and HH
rails, such as 0.266 ± 0.010 µm and 0.102 ± 0.006 µm, respectively, as
shown in Table 2. Accordingly, the nucleation and growth rates of
austenite in HH rail are approximately six times faster than SC rail [23].
Therefore, the volume of pearlite transformed into austenite is signifi­
cantly larger in HH rail than that in SC rail under the same condition.
Consequently, HH rail is are more susceptible to forming WELs than SC
rail, and the width and thickness of WELs on HH rails are more promi­
nent than that on SC rails.
As shown in Fig. 7, there is a significant discrepancy in the micro­
structures of WELs on SC and HH rails. WEL microstructure formed on
the SC rail is not uniform. In addition to the martensite, there are many
undissolved pearlite islands, as outlined by yellow circles in Fig. 7a. On
the other hand, the microstructure of WEL formed on HH rail is rela­
tively uniform without any remaining pearlite island. However, the
martensite of the WEL formed on HH rail still contained the remnants of
cementite, as shown in Fig. 7b. The confirmation of the remnants of
cementite could be found later in Fig. 9.
Fig. 8 shows the micro hardness distributions of WELs and the
9
International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100
underlying pearlite structure of SC and HH rails. It is interesting to find
that not only do the WELs formed in HH rail have a larger dimension
than that in SC rail, but also the WELs formed on HH rail show a much
higher hardness than the WELs formed on SC rail under the same ther­
mal condition. The average hardness of WELs on HH rail is 1088 ± 11
HV, which is around 20% higher than the hardness of 902 ± 51 HV on
SC rail. As SC and HH rails consist of similar chemical composition, and
WELs were induced under the same thermal cycle, it is reasonable to
hypothesize that the lower hardness of WELs formed on SC rail is caused
by the existence of sizeable undissolved pearlite islands, as shown in
Fig. 7.
Fig. 9 shows the detailed microstructures at the edge and center of
WELs, and the interface between WELs and parent material. Interest­
ingly, the WELs formed on SC and HH rails exhibit distinguished fea­
tures. There are sharp transitions between WEL and parent material at
the edge (Fig. 9b, f) and interface (Fig. 9d, h) due to the nature of
thermal origin [36]. In SC rail, the pearlitic interlamellar vanished after
the transformation to martensite at the edge and interface. However,
there is still a trace of lamellar feature in WEL formed on HH rails,
especially at the interface between WEL and HH matrix, as shown in
Fig. 9h. Based on the similar alignment of these lamellar structures and
the parent pearlite structure at the edge (Fig. 9f) and interface (Fig. 9h),
it is concluded that these lamellar microstructures in WELs on HH rails
are the remnant of cementite in the original parent material. As shown in
Fig. 9c and 9 g, the center of WELs on SC rail comprises fine particles
with the lamellar pearlite microstructure absent, while the WEL formed
on HH rail shows the lamellar microstructure. The existence of remnants
of cementite and traces of lamellar features in WELs were also observed
in the rapid cooling of high carbon steel [37–39]. The lamellar
morphology of the initially pearlitic material was also observed in the
B. Hieu Nguyen et al.
Fig. 12. TEM micrographs with embedded SAED image of WELs for SC and HH samples under arcing condition 4 at WEL/pearlite interface. (a), (b) SC sample; (c),
(d) HH sample.
research of WEL formation on rails in other literature [40,41]. In the
current work, we revealed the remnants of cementite and trace of
lamellar feature in WEL only occurred for HH rail instead of SC rail.
As SC and HH rails have similar chemical composition, thermal
diffusivity and conductivity, and are subject to the same thermal energy
input, the significant microstructure difference of WELs formed on them
can be explained by the completion between the austenite growth rate
and dissolution rate of cementite.
The remnants of cementite and trace of lamellar feature in WEL on
HH rail are induced because the growth rate of austenite is much faster
than the dissolution rate of cementite. Firstly, the austenite trans­
formation area of HH rail is more prominent than that of SC rail with the
same thermal energy input; thus, less energy was left for the cementite
dissolution in HH rail than in SC rail. Consequently, the proportion of
cementite dissolved is lower in HH rail, and the remnant of cementite
will exist. Secondly, the austenite nucleation and growth rates are
strongly dependent on the interlamellar spacing. The austenite nucle­
ation and growth rates on the HH rail are approximately six times faster
than those rates on the SC rail. Therefore, austenite formed significantly
faster on HH rail. When the formation rate of martensite is higher than
the dissolution rate of cementite, more undissolved cementite can be
10
International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100
observed inside the martensite.
As shown in Fig. 10, SEM-EDS line scan was conducted perpendicular
to potential remnant cementite at the center of WELs on SC and HH rail
grades. The enlarged SEM-EDS line scans and their corresponding
composition variation (Fig. 10 c, d) show that the Si and Mn are uni­
formly distributed for both rail grades; in contrast, C and Fe distributions
are significantly different. The uniform distributions of C and Fe along
the line scan of WEL on SC rail indicate that cementite is fully dissolved.
On the other hand, there are periodic C and Fe peaks on the WEL formed
on HH rail, which correspond to the interlamellar spacing. The EDS
results further confirmed that remnant of cementite only appeared in the
WELs formed on HH rail instead of SC rail.
3.2.2. TEM characterization of WEL/matrix interface on SC and HH rails
To measure the microstructure transformation at the WEL/matrix
interface, thin FIB foils prepared by FEI Helios NanoLab G3 CX instru­
ment were obtained from SC and HH rail samples, as shown in Fig. 11a,
b. The corresponding Transmission Electron Microscopy micrographs
were provided in Fig. 11c, d. It is evident that there is a sharp transition
at the WEL/pearlite matrix interface in SC rail compared to an irregular
characteristic boundary in HH rail. The undissolved cementite was
B. Hieu Nguyen et al.
visible in WELs formed on HH rail, which is aligned with the original
structure of pearlite, as shown in Fig. 11d. While there is no sign of
undissolved cementite in WELs formed SC rail. The TEM characteriza­
tion is consistent with findings in previous SEM measurements in Fig. 9.
Fig. 12 shows TEM micrographs with the corresponding selected area
electron diffraction pattern (SAED) of WELs formed on SC and HH rails.
Both the WELs’ microstructures exhibit the ultra-fine plate-like
martensite feature, as shown in the high magnification TEM images in
Fig. 12b and d (indicated by the red boxes in Fig. 12 a and c).
The diffraction pattern taken in the WEL formed on SC rail (indicated
by the yellow circle in the TEM image in Fig. 12a) shows a single
martensite crystal orientation with [1 1 1] bcc zone axis. Spots related to
cementite particles are not visible in the diffraction pattern, which in­
dicates completely dissolved cementite. The diffraction pattern viewing
along [0 0 1] bcc zone axis of the WEL formed on HH rail is shown in
Fig. 12c. The diffraction spots of cementite, (1 0 1) Fe3C, were found
inside the diffraction pattern, which indicates a partial dissolution of
cementite. The elongated diffraction spots of the (1 1 0)α’ are considered
to be induced by lattice distortion (microstrain) during the phase
transformation.
4. Conclusion
The extensive field monitoring up to two years and six months was
carried out on a track near the station to investigate the WELs formation
and evolution on SC and HH rails. It can be found that WELs were
formed in a short period after rail grinding and were not removed by the
natural wear during the service; in contrast, they became broader and
more severe. Different rail grades present a significant variation in the
formation and evolution behaviors of WELs. WELs formed earlier and
developed faster on HH rail than SC rail under the approximately same
loading and traffic conditions.
The microstructural variation of WELs formed on different rail
grades was carried out by investigating the thermally-induced WELs
introduced by the laboratory Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW)
experiment. The formation mechanism of WELs on different rail grades
is significantly different due to the interlamellar variation in SC and HH
rails. HH rails with lower interlamellar spacing promote faster austenite
nucleation and growth rates. As a consequence, WELs formed on HH rail
always lead in size and hardness compared to SC rail under different
arcing energy conditions.
Besides the same ultra-fine plate-like martensite, there is a discrep­
ancy in the microstructures of WELs formed on SC and HH rails. The
microstructure of WELs on SC rail was not uniform but comprised of
isolated undissolved pearlite islands, while the remnants of cementite
and trace of the lamellar feature were found in the WELs on HH. The
feature of WELs on HH rails might be attributed to the faster growth rate
of austenite than the dissolution rate of cementite.
The present study provides an understanding of the correlation be­
tween rail grades and WELs formation and evolution. This finding can be
beneficial in selecting the appropriate rail grades for controlling rail
defects and designing new generation rail materials for railway
transportation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors, Zhu and Nguyen, acknowledge the Industrial Trans­
formation Training Centre for Advanced Technologies in Rail Track
Infrastrucure (ARC, ITTC-Rail, IC170100006). The authors acknowledge
the use of FEI Nanolab G3 CX and JEOL JEM-F200 at the UOW Electron
11
International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100
Microscopy Center. This research used the FEI NanoLab G3 CX funded
by the Australian Research Council (ARC) – Linkage, Infrastructure,
Equipment and Facilities (LIEF) grant (LE160100063) located at the
UOW Electron Microscopy Centre.
References
[1] Tomičić-Torlaković M. Guidelines for the rail grade selection. Metalurgija 2014;53:
717–20.
[2] Railway track materials Part 1: Steel Rails, Australian Standard, North Sydney, NSW,
Australia; 2002.
[3] Steenbergen M. Rail surface conditioning and rail durability. In: 11th International
conference on contact mechanics and wear of rail/wheel systems (CM2018), Delft,
The Netherlands; 2018, pp. 921-930.
[4] Stock R, Pippan R. RCF and wear in theory and practice—The influence of rail
grade on wear and RCF. Wear 2011;271:125–33.
[5] Pointner P. High strength rail steels—The importance of material properties in
contact mechanics problems. Wear 2008;265:1373–9.
[6] Muster H, Schmedders H, Wick K, Pradier H. Rail rolling contact fatigue. The
performance of naturally hard and head-hardened rails in track. Wear 1996;191:
54–64.
[7] Hu Y, Zhou L, Ding HH, Tan GX, Lewis R, Liu QY, et al. Investigation on wear and
rolling contact fatigue of wheel-rail materials under various wheel/rail hardness
ratio and creepage conditions. Tribol Int 2020;143:106091.
[8] Ueda M, Matsuda K. Effects of carbon content and hardness on rolling contact
fatigue resistance in heavily loaded pearlitic rail steels. Wear 2019;444–445:
203120.
[9] Kerr M, Wilson A, Marich S. The epidemiology of squats and related rail defects,
Proc conference on railway engineering, Perth, Australia; 2008.
[10] Clayton P, Allery MBP. Metallurgical Aspects of Surface Damage Problems in Rails.
Can Metall Q 1982;21:31–46.
[11] Dikshit V, Clayton P, Christensen D. Investigation of rolling contact fatigue in a
head-hardened rail. Wear 1991;144:89–102.
[12] Al-Juboori A, Wexler D, Li H, Zhu H, Lu C, McCusker A, et al. Squat formation and
the occurrence of two distinct classes of white etching layer on the surface of rail
steel. Int J Fatigue 2017;104:52–60.
[13] Al-Juboori A, Zhu H, Wexler D, Li H, Lu C, McCusker A, et al. Characterisation of
White Etching Layers formed on rails subjected to different traffic conditions. Wear
2019;436–437:202998.
[14] Simon S, Saulot A, Dayot C, Quost X, Berthier Y. Tribological characterization of
rail squat defects. Wear 2013;297:926–42.
[15] Hieu Nguyen B, Al-Juboori A, Zhu H, Gazder AA, Li H, Tieu K. Fracture
mechanisms in rails with mechanically and thermomechanically-induced white
etching layers under three-point bending. Eng Fail Anal 2022;131:105813.
[16] Zhu H, Li H, Al-Juboori A, Wexler D, Lu C, McCusker A, et al. Understanding and
treatment of squat defects in a railway network. Wear 2020;442–443:203139.
[17] Wu J, Petrov RH, Naeimi M, Li Z, Dollevoet R, Sietsma J. Laboratory simulation of
martensite formation of white etching layer in rail steel. Int J Fatigue 2016;91:
11–20.
[18] Newcomb SB, Stobbs WM. A transmission electron microscopy study of the white-
etching layer on a rail head. Mater Sci Eng 1984;66:195–204.
[19] Naeimi M, Li S, Li Z, Wu J, Petrov RH, Sietsma J, et al. Thermomechanical analysis
of the wheel-rail contact using a coupled modelling procedure. Tribol Int 2018;
117:250–60.
[20] Al-Juboori A, Zhu H, Wexler D, Li H, Lu C, Gazder AA, et al. Microstructural
changes on railway track surfaces caused by electrical leakage between wheel and
rail. Tribol Int 2019;140:105875.
[21] Steenbergen M. Rolling contact fatigue in relation to rail grinding. Wear 2016;
356–357:110–21.
[22] Rasmussen CJ, Fæster S, Dhar S, Quaade JV, Bini M, Danielsen HK. Surface crack
formation on rails at grinding induced martensite white etching layers. Wear 2017;
384:8–14.
[23] Messaadi M, Steenbergen M. Susceptibility of pearlitic rail grades to thermal white
etching layer formation. In: 11th International conference on contact mechanics
and wear of rail/wheel systems (CM2018), Delft, The Netherlands; 2018, pp. 734-
744.
[24] Lian Q, Deng G, Al-Juboori A, Li H, Liu Z, Wang X, et al. Crack propagation
behavior in white etching layer on rail steel surface. Eng Fail Anal 2019;104:
816–29.
[25] Clayton P. Tribological aspects of wheel-rail contact: A review of recent
experimental research. Wear 1996;191:170–83.
[26] Deng X, Qian Z, Li Z, Dollevoet R. Investigation of the formation of corrugation-
induced rail squats based on extensive field monitoring. Int J Fatigue 2018;112:
94–105.
[27] Rasmussen CP, Nielsen BL, Prettner L, Scheriau S, Jorg A, Schoch W, et al. Tracking
down the origin of squats. Railway Gazette Int 2016;172:39–43.
[28] Roósz A, Gácsi Z, Fuchs EG. Isothermal formation of austenite in eutectoid plain
carbon steel. Acta Metall 1983;31:509–17.
[29] Olejarczyk I, Adrian H, Mrzygłód B. Mathematical Model of the Processoof Pearlite
Austenitization. Arch Metall Mater 2014;59:981–6.
[30] Kou S. Welding metallurgy / Sindo Kou. 2nd ed. Wiley-Interscience; 2003.
[31] Lian Q, Zhu H, Deng G, Wang X, Li H, Wang X, et al. Evolution of thermally
induced white etching layer at rail surface during multiple wheel/train passages.
Int J Fatigue 2022;159:106799.
B. Hieu Nguyen et al.
[32] Pal S, Daniel WJT, Valente CHG, Wilson A, Atrens A. Surface damage on new AS60
rail caused by wheel slip. Eng Fail Anal 2012;22:152–65.
[33] Lojkowski W, Djahanbakhsh M, Bürkle G, Gierlotka S, Zielinski W, Fecht HJ.
Nanostructure formation on the surface of railway tracks. Mater Sci Eng, A 2001;
303:197–208.
[34] Baumann G, Fecht HJ, Liebelt S. Formation of white-etching layers on rail treads.
Wear 1996;191:133–40.
[35] Su H, Pun CL, Mutton P, Kan Q, Kang G, Yan W. Numerical study on the ratcheting
performance of rail flash butt welds in heavy haul operations. Int J Mech Sci 2021;
199:106434.
[36] Österle W, Rooch H, Pyzalla A, Wang L. Investigation of white etching layers on
rails by optical microscopy, electron microscopy, X-ray and synchrotron X-ray
diffraction. Mater Sci Eng, A 2001;303:150–7.
12
International Journal of Fatigue 163 (2022) 107100
[37] Savran VI. Austenite formation in C-Mn steel, Mechanical Maritime and Materials
Engineering, Delft University of Technology (TU Delft); 2009.
[38] Shtansky DV, Nakai K, Ohmori Y. Pearlite to austenite transformation in an
Fe–2.6Cr–1C alloy. Acta Mater 1999;47:2619–32.
[39] Speich GR, Szirmae A, Speich GR, Richards MJ. Part V - May 1969 - Papers -
Formation of Austenite from Ferrite and Ferrite-Carbide Aggregates. The American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers; 1970.
[40] Kumar A, Agarwal G, Petrov R, Goto S, Sietsma J, Herbig M. Microstructural
evolution of white and brown etching layers in pearlitic rail steels. Acta Mater
2019;171:48–64.
[41] Stadlbauer W, Loos W, Werner E. Tribologically induced changes in the
microstructure of rail surfaces. 2nd World Tribology Congress 2003:pp. 1e4.