j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l .

2 0 2 0;9(x x):9588–9597

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.jmrt.com.br

Original Article

Fracture toughness, fatigue crack resistance and

wear resistance of two railroad steels

Leonardo B. Godefroid ∗ , Andrew T. Souza, Maria A. Pinto

REDEMAT, Federal University of Ouro Preto, Campus Morro do Cruzeiro, Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil

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

Article history: This research evaluated the microstructure and compared important mechanical proper-
Received 11 October 2019 ties of two steels for use in the railway sector. The main objective of the work was to verify
Accepted 29 June 2020 the possibility of replacing a traditional C-Mn-Si pearlitic steel widely used in the world
for application on rails, here called CS (common steel), by an also pearlitic steel with Nb
and V micro-additions, rarely applied on rails, here called MS (microalloyed steel). The
Keywords: microstructures were characterized by means of pearlite colony size and pearlitic inter-
Railroad steel lamellar spacing measurements, using light optical microscopy (LOM), scanning electron
Microalloying microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). The mechanical properties were eval-
Fracture toughness uated by tensile tests, hardness tests, fracture toughness tests, force controlled axial fatigue
Fatigue resistance tests, fatigue crack growth rate tests and microabrasion wear tests. CS presented a more
Wear resistance refined microstructure than MS, due to differences in the thermomechanical industrial pro-
cedures. However, hardness, yield and tensile strength, and fracture toughness were similar
for both steels. The main differences in the mechanical behavior were verified in the ten-
sile ductility, fatigue crack growth resistance and wear resistance; the value for these three
properties was higher for MS. Considering the main metallurgical requirements for an ade-
quate selection of materials to be applied in the railway sector, these results show that the
use of a Nb-V microalloyed steel is therefore a good option to ensure the best performance
in service of the rail.
© 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/).

ciation of Railway Carriers) shows that between 1997 and 2018

1. Introduction there was a 125% increase in the volume of cargo transported,
with a corresponding increase in productivity (ton/km) of 195%
In an extensive territory and with an expressive geographic
[1]. These facts cause a corresponding increase of stress and
relief variation, Brazil presents a wide railroad network that
wear over time, which can lead to structural deterioration of
in recent years has shown a continuous increase in freight,
railroads. Another problem is that Brazil uses steel rails of
train frequency and traffic speed. In order to have an idea of
different grades and imports these materials from different
the current Brazilian railway situation, ANTF (National Asso-
countries and, sometimes, these steels do not have a strict
quality control [2–4].
Several recent researches [5–11] related to the performance
∗
Corresponding author. of rail steels in service have shown that defects generated
E-mail: leonardo@ufop.edu.br (L.B. Godefroid). by fatigue and wear are the main causes for failures that
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2020.06.092
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):9588–9597
reduce the life of these components. Obviously, these failures
must be minimized or even avoided, because frequent main-
tenance and replacement of rails are expensive procedures
in terms not only of resources, but also of track access time
and delays affecting timetables. Consequently, if problems are
not resolved in a context of heavier traffic and the use of pos-
sible materials that do not meet specifications, catastrophic
fractures with materials and human losses may occur.
The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-
Way Association—AREMA [12] and its corresponding European
Committee for Standardization—CEN [13] specify rails for
general and high speed railway track usage. These agencies
classify rail steels according to their chemical composition as
standard or low alloy, and according to their hardness and ten-
sile properties as standard, intermediate or high strength rail
steels.
Pearlitic steels have been used extensively on railroads
around the world due to their mechanical properties and to
their cost. These steels are appropriate for this particular
application, which requires high values for tensile strength,
fracture toughness and wear resistance. Microstructures can
be controlled by adding alloying elements, austenitizing con-
ditions, cooling rate and rolling parameters. Rails may be head
hardened by a special heat treatment to increase their wear
resistance. There is consensus in the scientific community,
properly confirmed by reference researches [14–18], about the
effects of microstructural parameters on the tensile mechan-
ical properties and wear resistance of pearlitic steels. It is
commonly accepted that yield strength will increase and wear
rate will decrease with decreasing prior austenitic grain size,
pearlite colonies size and interlamellar spacing.
One of the traditionally accepted ways to achieve this
microstructural refinement is the micro-addition of alloying
elements such as niobium and vanadium. These elements
form carbonitrides precipitates that anchor the growth of
austenitic grains during soaking at austenitizing temper-
atures. During hot rolling, strain-induced precipitates pin
austenite boundaries and delay or inhibit austenite recrys-
tallisation, thus producing a pancaked austenite structure.
This microstructural control provides the formation of small
pearlite colonies and an adequate interlamellar spacing
[19–29].
Research involving pearlitic steels is generally concen-
trated on its tensile performance, with few studies on fracture
toughness, fatigue and wear resistance. It is also very impor-
tant to note that the performance of steels with microalloying
elements is well known for low carbon steels (0.01–0.2%) for
many applications, but it is rarely explored for high car-
bon steels (0.6–0.8%) for application on rails [29]. Moreover,
although there is a direct relationship between microstruc-
ture and fatigue strength, the microstructural characteristics
that can increase the crack nucleation resistance will generally
decrease the fatigue crack growth resistance [30–33].
The purpose of this research was to evaluate the
microstructure and to compare significant mechanical prop-
erties of two pearlitic steels for use in the railway sector.
One of the materials is a C-Mn-Si common steel and the
other is a Nb-V-microalloyed steel. The microstructures were
characterized by means of pearlite colony size and pearlitic
interlamellar spacing measurements. The mechanical proper-
9589
ties of the steels were obtained by mechanical tests, including
tensile, hardness, fracture toughness (KIC ), fatigue (crack initi-
ation/growth =  a x Nf and crack growth = da/dN x K) as well
as microabrasion wear tests.
This research is justified by presenting the following high-
lights:
a) verification of the potential use of a pearlitic steel with Nb
and V additions, rarely applied in the railway sector;
b) microstructural evaluation using two common techniques
(LOM and SEM) and a more sophisticated technique (AFM)
for accurate identification of parameters related to the
pearlite in the two studied steels;
c) characterization of a set of essential mechanical properties
of steels applied to railways in a single work, with emphasis
on the use of fracture mechanics parameters in the eval-
uation of fracture toughness and fatigue resistance, and
the use of a relatively simple, fast and inexpensive test to
evaluate the wear resistance;
d) opportunity to expand material selection options in a
growing market, which requires greater performance and
better quality control for these materials.
2. Materials and methodology
Two eutectoid steels were identified as CS (a C-Mn-Si common
steel) and MS (a microalloyed steel with significant niobium
and vanadium content: Nb + V ≈ 0.1%). CS steel was sup-
plied by VLI (one of the Brazilian companies responsible for
the national railway sector); MS steel was manufactured and
supplied by OneSteel (Australian steel industry). Standards
documents for railroads [12,13] show that the CS steel is
denoted standard, while the MS steel is a low alloy rail steel.
Both steels basically meet SAE-AISI 1080 [34] specification with
an addition of Nb and V for MS steel, two important alloy-
ing elements used as an agent that contributes to hardening
mechanisms, such as grain size and precipitation, maintain-
ing good fracture toughness. The AREMA standard [12] refers
to the ASTM A 1 standard [35] with equivalence of chemi-
cal composition and hardness, and which considers the same
chemical composition as the SAE-AISI 1080 standard.
Specimens used for microstructural characterization and
mechanical tests were obtained from the middle of the rail-
heads in order to avoid top surface effects. This is especially
important for the pearlitic railhead, which has undergone
head hardening.
The samples used for microstructural examination were
cut, ground, polished and etched with 2% Nital solution. The
samples were examined using a LEICA LOM, a VEGA3 TESCAN
SEM and a XE7 Park Systems AFM. The determination of the
pearlite colony size (d) was performed using thermal etching
technique in a controlled atmosphere furnace. As the samples
were pre-polished before the heat treatment, the boundaries
of pearlite colonies were preferentially oxidized, creating the
necessary contrast. The samples were then directly analyzed
by LOM, and the calculations were done according to ASTM
standards [36,37]. The interlamellar spacing (␭) was measured
through observation of SEM micrographs by looking up the
regions of smaller spacing, which will be the ones that the
9590 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):9588–9597
Table 1 – Chemical composition of the rail steels (wt%).
Steel C Mn Si P S
CS 0.72 0.84 0.24 0.02 0.01
MS 0.77 1.04 0.47 0.01 0.02
Fig. 1 – Micrograph of CS steel. 2% Nital etching. d = 17 ± 11 ␮m;  = 0.15 ± 0.02 ␮m.
polishing plan will cut perpendicularly to the lamellar pearlite.
The interlamellar spacing was obtained by:
= (VB×ML)/(MB×NL) (1)
where VB is the measurement of the micron bar (␮m), MB is the
real measurement of the bar measured in the image (mm), ML
is the length of the line drawn perpendicularly to the lamellae
(mm) and NL is the number of cementite lamellae counted
along the drawn line.
AFM was also used to measure and to confirm the
interlamellar spacing. The pearlite colonies apparently
perpendicular to the sectioning plane were chosen for obser-
vation. The thinner topographic features that were revealed on
AFM images show cementite lamellae forming “hills” above
ferrite “valleys”. A perpendicular test-line was drawn to the
lamellae over the image. The image analysis software provides
a topographic profile of the microstructure along the test-line.
It is possible to measure distances between markers drawn
to such line that gives the exact distance and the number of
“hills” along the profile and allows the measurement of the
distances of groups of “n” lamellae.
Tensile, fracture toughness and fatigue tests were per-
formed on a 100 kN MTS servo-hydraulic materials testing
system interfaced to a computer for machine control and data
acquisition, at room temperature in atmospheric air.
Hardness tests were performed in Rockwell C scale [38],
following the AREMA [12] standard recommendations and
reported in Brinell scale, using an AREMA HRC to HB conver-
sion formula. Hardness profiles of the railhead were obtained
by subjecting its transversal section to hardness measure-
ments.
Tensile tests [39] were conducted with three round speci-
mens of each steel, taken from the railhead in the longitudinal
direction, with 25 mm of gage length and 6 mm of diameter.
The tests were carried out with displacement control, at a rate
of 5 mm/min. Engineering stress-strain curves were plotted for
each sample, and then an average tensile curve was obtained
for each steel using the OriginPro 9.0.0 (2013) software. True ten-
Cu Cr Ni Mo Nb V
– 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.002
0.01 0.01 0.01 – 0.03 0.06
sile curves were subsequently obtained from these average
curves, for adjustments by the well-known Ramberg-Osgood
equation, where the total strain is the sum of its elastic and
plastic components:
ε=εel +εpl =/E+(/H)1/n (2)
where H is called the strength coefficient, and n is called the
strain hardening exponent.
Fracture toughness tests [40] were carried out using five
3-point SE(B) specimens of each steel, in the L-T orientation,
with 15 mm thickness, 30 mm width and a fatigue precrack
length of 1.5 mm introduced into each specimen aiming to
have a crack size to width ratio (a/W) of 0.55. Crack open-
ing displacement measurements were performed using a COD
extensometer. The results were analyzed for obtaining KQ and
validation of the KIC test.
Force controlled constant amplitude axial fatigue tests [41]
were conducted with the same round specimens used for the
tensile tests. All the tests are performed considering the R-
ratio (minimum to maximum load) equal to 0.1 at a frequency
of 30 Hz. Five loading levels were chosen with the maximum
cycling load being a fraction of the tensile strength of each
steel. The fatigue endurance limit was obtained for the corre-
sponding value of 107 cycles without fracturing the sample.
Fatigue crack growth tests [42] were performed with two
SE(B) specimens, using the same dimensions adopted for the
fracture toughness tests, with initial crack size to width ratio
(a/W) of 0.3. All the tests were conducted considering R-ratio
equal to 0.1 at a frequency of 30 Hz. The fatigue threshold
value KTH was defined as the stress intensity factor range
at which the fatigue crack growth rate decreased to below 1
× 10−7 mm/cycle, by a K-decreasing procedure, limiting the
normalized K-gradient to −0.08 mm−1 . The method of deter-
mining the crack opening load near the threshold KTH , and
therefore of estimating KCL and Keff to characterize the phe-
nomenon of crack closure, was made by the compliance offset
procedure.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):9588–9597 9591

Table 2 – Mechanical tests results. Tensile results are an average of three tests for each steel; fracture toughness results
are an average of five tests for each steel.
Steel HB5 HB35 E (GPa) YS (MPa) UTS (MPa) DEF (%) n H (MPa) KIC (MPa. m1/2 )

CS 347 ± 5 317 ± 1 210 674 ± 32 1165 ± 31 10 ± 3 0.18 2072 47 ± 2

MS 333 ± 6 313 ± 4 210 760 ± 31 1154 ± 10 16 ± 1 0.19 2002 45 ± 3

HB5 , hardness 5 mm below the surface; HB35 , hardness 35 mm below the surface; YS, yield strength; UTS, ultimate tensile strength; DEF, total
strain; E, Young modulus; n, strain hardening exponent; H, strength coefficient; KIC , plane-strain fracture toughness.

Fig. 2 – Micrograph of MS steel. 2% Nital etching. d = 38 ± 4 ␮m;  = 0.24 ± 0.03 ␮m.

Micro-abrasive wear testing by rotating ball is designed to

evaluate the abrasion resistance of surfaces on a small scale,
allowing the precise control of tribosystem variables [43]. The
tests were conducted by using a rotating ball, which is forced
in a total distance of 180 m against the surface of a fixed speci-
men under a normal force (1 N) that produces a frictional force,
while an abrasive slurry (SiC + H2 O) is introduced between
the ball and the specimen during the experiments, producing
“wear craters”. Three samples were used for each steel. This is
a relatively simple, fast and inexpensive test, which allows an
effective performance comparison among materials subjected
to wear.
Fracture surfaces of the broken specimens after tensile,
toughness and fatigue tests were analyzed by SEM to identify
the fracture mechanisms of the steels. The analysis of “wear
craters” by SEM was performed at the surface in all specimens
Fig. 3 – Microhardness profiles of the railhead for the two
after wear tests to identify the wear mechanisms of the steels.
steels.

high mechanical resistance without loss of the steel fracture

3. Results and discussion
Table 1 shows the chemical composition of the two studied
steels. It should be noted that the steels have a completely
pearlitic microstructure when manufactured, even though
they have different C contents. This can be explained by the
contribution of two aspects: thermodynamic and kinetic. The
thermodynamic aspect is associated with the additions of
Si and Mn that move the eutectoid composition to values
lower than 0.78. This fact and an out of equilibrium cooling
restrict the formation of primary ferrite, contributing to com-
pletely pearlitic microstructures. It is interesting to highlight
the 0.03% Nb content in the chemical composition of MS steel,
which is cited in the literature [22,26–28] as an effective value
for controlling the pearlitic interlamellar spacing, providing
toughness.
Figs. 1 and 2 show that the two studied steels have a
completely pearlitic microstructure, without the presence of
primary ferrite, indicating the effects of their chemical compo-
sitions. These figures also show that the formed fine pearlite
is different. Indeed, the pearlitic colony size and the pearlitic
interlamellar spacing have more refined values for the CS
steel, indicating a different thermomechanical processing for
the two studied steels. This is consistent because steels come
from different manufacturers.
Fig. 3 presents the hardness profiles between the surface
and the interior from the railhead for both steels. Both steels
showed a hardness difference between the surface and the
interior of the railhead, indicating a hardening treatment com-
monly used in rails steels mainly for wear resistance.
9592 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):9588–9597

steel. The fracture mechanism observed in the tensile samples

Fig. 4 – Tensile curves of the two steels (average of three
tensile tests for each steel).
Fig. 4 shows the tensile curves of the two steels. Each curve
represents the average of three tensile tests, the results of
which were processed by the OriginPro 9.0.0 (2013) software.
Table 2 summarizes the main properties measured in these
tests. It is possible to observe that both steels showed simi-
lar mechanical strength, but with 60% greater ductility for MS
in both steels was mixed: a central fibrous zone character-
istic of ductile behavior (dimples), followed by a radial zone
characteristic of brittle behavior (cleavage), with a final sur-
face ductile tearing. Fig. 5 shows examples of this behavior
for the two steels, in the transition region between the fibrous
zone and the radial zone.
Fig. 6 shows representative force-displacement (CMOD)
records from the fracture toughness test of each steel. These
curves present the graphic procedures used to determine KIC
[40]. A small amount of unstable crack growth (i.e., a pop-
in) occurs before the curves deviate from linearity by 5%. All
tests met the specimen thickness and uncracked ligament size
requirements, as well as the Pmax /PQ ratio, ensuring the vali-
dation of the tests. Table 2 shows the calculated KIC values,
representing an average of five tests for each steel. The KIC
obtained values are following the results commonly found in
the literature for rail steels [22,26,27]. Fracture surfaces from
these tests are exemplified in Fig. 7, indicating that the fracture
mechanism observed for the two steels was brittle (cleavage).
The change in the fracture mechanism between the tensile
and fracture toughness tests shows the stress concentration
sensitivity of both steels caused by the presence of a crack.
This conclusion is a highlight for the present work, indicating

Fig. 5 – Fracture surface between fibrous and radial zones of specimens of representative tensile tests.

Fig. 6 – Examples of load P versus CMOD curves used to calculate the fracture toughness of the steels.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):9588–9597 9593

Fig. 7 – Fracture surface immediately ahead of the “notch + precrack” of specimens of representative fracture toughness
tests.

the need to be concerned with the steel fracture toughness and

use this property as a complement to the materials selection
and maintenance for the railway sector.
Considering hardness, tensile and fracture toughness
results, the steels meet the standard requirements [12,13]
for railroad applications. Thus, it seems reasonable that the
cheapest CS steel could be chosen for that application, and
that there would be no need to concern about Nb and V micro-
additions.
Regarding fatigue strength, two distinct situations must
be considered: initiation and crack growth. There is a con-
sensus in the literature that the crack initiation process
generally occurs at the surface of the material as a conse-
quence of cyclic slip and dislocations pile-ups. Initiation of
fatigue cracks has been observed to occur along slip bands, at
grain boundaries, at second-phase particles, and at inclusion- Fig. 8 –  max x Nf plot for the two steels. Three specimens
second phase interfaces, depending on which mechanism were used for each load level for each steel. The points
occurs most easily. For pearlitic steels [31], it is observed that corresponding to N = 107 cycles are run-outs (no fracture).
the main microstructural effect is the interlamellar spacing. In
fact, refining the interlamellar spacing should reduce the pile-
up stresses, thereby reducing the stress which could cause a
cementite plate to fail, hence the increase in tensile strength beginning the crack growth in this steel. The extrinsic mech-
and, consequently, the increase in fatigue crack initiation anism is related to the crack closure phenomenon during the
resistance. In the present work, Fig. 8 shows that there was no crack growth regime: for CS steel, Kcl /Kmax = 0.25, while for
significant difference in crack initiation resistance. This indi- MS steel Kcl /Kmax = 0.35 (40% higher) at the threshold region.
cates that the microstructural changes were not sufficient to Thus, the beginning of crack growth and its development in
modify the behavior of the steels, in the same way as verified region I are more difficult for MS steel. This indicates that
in their tensile strength. This is another apparent indication for this part of the fatigue life the microstructural changes
for material selection in favor of CS steel over MS steel. The were sufficient to modify the behavior of the steels. The con-
fracture mechanism is the same for the two steels, as can be cept of roughness-induced crack closure is utilized by many
seen in Fig. 9, with the traditional crack initiation from the researchers to explain the role of prior austenitic grain size,
sample surface, crack growth and brittle final tear. pearlitic colony size, and pearlitic interlamellar spacing on
Fig. 10 shows that there was a significant difference in near-threshold fatigue crack propagation in fully pearlitic
fatigue crack growth resistance in favor of MS steel in region eutectoid steel. It is shown [32] that the fatigue crack growth
I (threshold) of the sigmoidal curve. Two mechanisms, intrin- rates, particularly near the threshold region and at low load
sic and extrinsic, are responsible for this mechanical behavior. ratio, are significantly reduced for coarse-grained microstruc-
The intrinsic mechanism is related to the greater capacity for tures, compared to fine-grained at constant yield strength,
plastic deformation of MS steel (Fig. 4, Table 2), the forma- due to roughness-induced crack closure. Thus, being able to
tion of a larger plastic zone and generation of a higher level develop a microstructure capable of maintaining adequate
of residual compressive stresses at the crack tip when the tensile strength and fracture toughness, higher values for
fatigue test starts, thus requiring greater driving force (K) for microstructural parameters are interesting for fatigue resis-
9594 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):9588–9597
Fig. 9 – Fracture surface of specimens cyclically loaded at ␴max = 60%UTS. The dashed arc indicates the separation between
the fatigue and tensile tear regions. The arrows indicate the crack nucleation and its growth direction.
Fig. 10 – da/dN x K plot for the two steels. Two specimens
were used for each steel. The points corresponding to the
region near da/dN = 10−7 mm/cycle were used to estimate
the threshold KTH .
tance. In this way, an adequate balance between the presence
of microalloying elements and a thermomechanical treatment
may lead to the development of a steel suitable for the desired
application.
Considering the similarity of previous results for hardness,
tensile strength, fracture toughness and fatigue endurance
limit of the two studied steels, and now considering the differ-
ent behavior for the fatigue crack growth, it can be concluded
that the MS steel is more suitable for use in rails. This con-
clusion is another highlight for the present work, indicating
the need to always evaluate the steel fatigue crack growth
resistance and use this parameter as a complement to the
materials selection and maintenance for the railway sector.
It is important to register that the railway standards [12,13] do
not specify criteria related to properties obtained from fatigue
tests, making incomplete the procedure for materials selec-
tion for railroad applications.
In region II of the sigmoidal curve, the microstructural dif-
ferences were not enough to influence the behavior of the
two steels. As well documented by the literature [30–33], this
region is small influenced by the material’s microstructure.
Table 3 – Results obtained after wear tests. The results
are an average of three tests for each steel.
Steel Wear Crater (␮m) Wear Coefficient, k (m3 /Nm)
CS 1322 ± 117 6.7 × 10−14
MS 1149 ± 99 3.8 × 10−14
It is interesting to note that for the same variation in driv-
ing force, the variation in crack growth rate in this region is
greater for the MS steel. However, the crack in both cases is
already approaching its critical value. As the two steels have a
very similar fracture toughness, the end of the fatigue behav-
ior also occurs for a similar driving force. Thus, the fatigue
crack growth curves of the two steels start at a significantly
different driving force, but they finish at approximately the
same value for the driving force.
The SEM images taken from the fracture surfaces of a
fatigue specimen of both steels are shown in Figs. 11 and 12.
For both steels the fracture surface presented a tortuous shape
in region I (threshold), a planar form in region II (without stri-
ations), and brittle in region III (tearing of the material).
Table 3 shows the results of micro-abrasive wear tests. The
coefficient k represents the wear rate and is defined by the
volume of worn material per unit of force and per unit of slip
distance of the wear test. It can then be observed that the MS
steel is more resistant to abrasive wear than the CS steel (76%
higher for the k value of the CS steel). Therefore, there is one
more indication that the microalloyed steel is more suitable
for application on rails. This conclusion is another highlight
for the present work, also indicating the need to always eval-
uate the steel wear resistance and use this parameter as a
complement to the materials selection and maintenance for
the railway sector.
The significant difference in wear resistance between the
two steels is surprising, since it is generally assumed that
materials with greater hardness retain higher wear resistance,
especially under mild wear conditions. In the present case the
hardness of the two steels is very similar. Thus, the hardness
does not seem to explain the different wear behavior of the
steels. The factor that can have contributed to the higher resis-
tance to abrasive wear for the MS steel is its greater ductility.
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):9588–9597 9595

Fig. 11 – Fracture surface of a fatigued CS specimen.

Fig. 12 – Fracture surface of a fatigued MS specimen.

Fig. 13 – (a) Micro-rolling wear mechanism in the CS steel. (b) Grooving wear mechanism predominant in the MS steel.

For dry wear tests on materials of similar hardness, the
specimen with high ductility shows a lower wear rate than
the specimen with low ductility [44–46]. During the early stage
of the wear test, surface deformation layers (micro-grooving
process) are formed in the specimen by strain accumulation
through repeated contact of the ball. As the sliding distance
increases, platelets are detached from the surface and wear
occurs in the specimen. The detachment proceeds when
cracks are initiated along regions where the accumulated
strain exceeds its failure or critical strain, forming powdery
wear debris. The wear test results and the SEM micrographs
reveal that the specimen with higher ductility (higher crit-
ical strain) forms the delaminating surface platelets slowly
and shows a lower wear rate. The delayed formation directly
resulted in the lower wear rate and the ductility appears to be
an important material parameter in determining the wear rate
under the given test conditions. For micro-abrasive wear tests,
additional mechanisms may occur on worn surfaces [47,48].
These mechanisms occurred when: (i) a grooving abrasion
(surface deformation layers) results when abrasive particles
slide on the specimen; (ii) a rolling abrasion (pits formation)
is observed when abrasive particles roll on the specimen; and
(iii) the superposition of the two modes (micro-rolling). In this
case, a specimen of higher ductility will have a smaller wear
crater. A smaller surface area induces a greater normal pres-
sure of the ball in the abrasive particles, further promoting
9596 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):9588–9597
the grooving wear mechanism. When the specimen exhibits
lower ductility, a lower pressure will promote grooving and
rolling (micro-rolling), creating more damage to the material.
Fig. 13 presents the different existing mechanisms of wear.
The mechanism acting on the MS steel was grooving and on
the CM steel was micro-rolling.
4. Conclusions
This research characterized the microstructure and evaluated
the mechanical behavior of two pearlitic steels for use in rail-
roads, a C-Mn-Si common steel (CS), and a Nb-V-microalloyed
steel (MS). The main conclusions are listed below.
a) The two studied steels had a completely pearlitic
microstructure, being that CS steel presented smaller val-
ues of pearlitic colony size and interlamellar spacing.
b) The tensile strength and fracture toughness of the two
steels are similar. However, the strain to fracture is higher
for MS steel (60%).
c) Regarding fatigue strength, there was no significant differ-
ence in crack initiation resistance for both steels. However,
MS steel had a higher fatigue crack growth resistance,
notably in the threshold region (91%).
d) The MS steel is more resistant to abrasive wear than the CS
steel (76%).
e) Considering that the application of pearlitic steels on rail-
roads will certainly involve fatigue and wear phenomena,
the use of microalloyed steels with Nb and V is therefore an
important option to ensure the best performance in service
of the rail.
f) Standard documents like AREMA and CEN used in the selec-
tion and maintenance of rail materials need to take into
account more specifically the performance of materials in
relation to fatigue and wear degradation.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
A.T.S. would like to acknowledge CAPES (Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior), Brazil, for
financial support. The authors acknowledge the VLI (Brazil)
railroad company and OneSteel (Australia) steel plant for the
supply of the steels employed in this research.
references
[1] Associação Nacional de Transportadores Ferroviários (ANTF).
www.antf.org.br, consulted on March 23, 2020.
[2] Godefroid LB, Faria GL, Cândido LC, Santos RM, Vilela TCG.
Mechanical properties of two different pearlitic steels for
railroad application. In: Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Fracture. 2017.
[3] Godefroid LB, Moreira LP, Vilela TCG, Faria GL, Cândido LC,
Pinto ES. Effect of chemical composition and microstructure
on the fatigue crack growth resistance of pearlitic steels for
railroad application. Int J Fatigue 2019;120:241–53.
[4] Porcaro RR, Faria GL, Godefroid LB, Apolonio GR, Candido LC,
Pinto ES. Microstructure and mechanical properties of a flash
butt welded pearlitic rail. J Mater Proc Technol 2019;270:20–7.
[5] Cannon DF, Edel KO, Grassie SL, Sawley K. Rail defects: an
overview. Fat Fract Eng Mater Struct 2003;26:865–87.
[6] Zerbst U, Mädler K, Hintze H. Fracture mechanics in railway
applications—an overview. Eng Fract Mech 2005;72:163–94.
[7] Franklin FJ, Kapoor A. Modelling wear and crack initiation in
rails. J Rail Rapid Transit 2007;221:23–33.
[8] Plu J, Bondeux S, Boulanger D, Heyder R. Application of
fracture mechanics methods to rail design and maintenance.
Eng Fract Mech 2009;76:2602–11.
[9] Sahay SS, Mohapatra G, Totten GE. Overview of pearlitic rail
steel: accelerated cooling, quenching, microstructure, and
mechanical properties. J ASTM Int 2009;6(7):1–25.
[10] Zerbst U, Lundén R, Edel KO, Smith RA. Introduction to the
damage tolerance behaviour of railway rails—a review. Eng
Fract Mech 2009;76:2563–601.
[11] Sheinman E. Wear of rails: a review of the american press. J
Frict Wear 2012;33:308–14.
[12] AREMA - American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association, Manual for Railway
Engineering, Vol. 1 – Track, 2019.
[13] CEN - European Committee for Standardization, EN 13674-1,
Railway Applications – Track – Rail, 2017.
[14] Gladman T, Mclvor I, Pickering F. Some aspects of the
structure—property relationship in high carbon
ferrite-pearlite steels. J Iron Steel Instit 1972;210:916–30.
[15] Hyzak JM, Bernstein IM. The role of microstructure on the
strength and toughness of fully pearlitic steels. Metall Mater
Trans A 1976;7:1217–24.
[16] Dollar M, Bernstein IM, Thompson AW. Influence of
deformation substructure on flow and fracture of fully
pearlitic steel. Acta Metall 1988;36:311–20.
[17] Clayton P, Danks D. Effect of interlamelar spacing on the
wear resistance of eutectoid steels under rolling/sliding
conditions. Wear 1990;135:369–87.
[18] Perez-Unzueta AJ, Beynon JH. Microstructure and wear
resistance of pearlitic rail steels. Wear 1993;162-4:173–82.
[19] Nolasco A, Oliveira EQ, Leonardos G, Bordignon PJP. Niobium
in Si-Mn rail steel. In: Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Niobium’ 81. 1981. p. 1041–60.
[20] Kestenbach HJ, Martins GS. Effect of niobium on austenite
recrystallization and pearlite colony size in a microalloyed
eutectoid steel. Metall Trans A 1984;15(7):1496–9.
[21] Williams JG, Simpson ID, MacDonald JK. Niobium in rail
steels. In: Niobium - Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Niobium’81. 1984. p. 1019–40.
[22] Wada T, Fukuda K. Effect of rolling in low temperature
austenite region on strength, ductility and toughness of rail
steels. Tetsu Hagane 1987;73(9):1162–9.
[23] Singh UP, Singh R, Jha S. Influence of microalloying on
fracture toughness and wear resistance of rail steel. Scand J
Metall 1995;24(4):180–6.
[24] Fonseca MDGM, Almeida LH, Gomes LCFC, Le May I. Effects
of microstructural parameters on the mechanical properties
of eutectoid rail steels. Mater Charact 1997;39(1):1–14.
[25] De Boer H, Masumoto H. Niobium in rail steel. In: Niobium
2001 - Science and Technology, Proceedings of the
International Symposium. 2001. p. 821–44.
[26] Liu C, Huang Y, Jiang M. Effects and mechanisms of niobium
on the fracture toughness of heavy rail steel. Adv Mat Res
2011;163:110–6.
[27] Jansto S. Metallurgical mechanism and niobium effects on
improved mechanical properties in high carbon steels. In:
HSLA Steels 2015, Microalloying 2015 & Offshore Engineering
 j m a t e r r e s t e c h n o l . 2 0 2 0;9(x x):9588–9597
Steels 2015. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2015.
p. 981–6.
[28] Yang Z, Wang H, Ji Y. Study on Nb microalloying in high
carbon pearlite steels for rails. In: HSLA Steels 2015,
Microalloying 2015 & Offshore Engineering Steels 2015.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2015. p. 987–93.
[29] Ray A. Niobium microalloyed rail steels. Mater Sci Technol
2017;33:1584–600.
[30] Cooke RJ, Beevers CJ. Slow fatigue crack propagation in
pearlitic steels. Mater Sci Eng 1974;3:201–10.
[31] Gray GT, Thompson AW, Williams JC. Influence of
microstructure on fatigue crack initiation in fully pearlitic
steels. Metall Mater Trans A 1985;16A:753–60.
[32] Gray GT, Williams JC, Thompson AW. Roughness-induced
crack closure: an explanation for microstructurally sensitive
fatigue crack growth. Metall Mater Trans A 1983;14A:421–33.
[33] Daeubler MA, Thompson AW, Bernstein IM. Influence of
microstructure on fatigue behavior and surface fatigue crack
growth of fully pearlitic steels. Metall Mater Trans A
1990;21A:925–33.
[34] ASM Handbook, et al. In: Properties and selection: irons,
steels, and High-performance alloys; 1997.
[35] ASTM A 1-00, PA, USA Standard specification for carbon steel
tee rails; 2018.
[36] ASTM E112-13, PA, USA Standard test methods for
determining average grain size; 2014.
[37] ASTM E1382-97, PA, USA Standard test methods for
determining average grain size using semiautomatic and
automatic image analysis; 2016.
9597
[38] ASTM E18-17, PA, USA Standard test methods for rockwell
hardness of metallic materials; 2017.
[39] ASTM E8/E8M-16a, PA, USA Standard test methods for
tension testing of metallic materials; 2016.
[40] ASTM E399-17, PA, USA Standard test method for
linear-elastic plane-strain fracture toughness, KIC of metallic
materials; 2017.
[41] ASTM E466-15, PA, USA Standard practice for conducting
force controlled constant amplitude axial fatigue tests of
metallic materials; 2015.
[42] ASTM E647-15, PA, USA Standard test method for
measurement of fatigue crack growth rates; 2015.
[43] Cozza RC, Rodrigues LC, Schön CG. Analysis of the
micro-abrasive wear behavior of an iron aluminide alloy
under ambient and high-temperature conditions. Wear
2015;330-1, 250-250.
[44] Kong H, Yoon ES, Kwon OK. Self-formation of protective
oxide films at dry sliding mild steel surfaces under a
medium vacuum. Wear 1955;181-3:325–33.
[45] Kim SH, Kim YS. Effect of ductility on dry sliding wear of
medium carbon steel under low load conditions. Met Mater
1999;5:267–71.
[46] Sharma G, Limaye PK, Ramanujan RV, Sundararaman M,
Prabhu N. Dry-sliding wear studies of Fe3Al-ordered
intermetallic alloy. Mater Sci Eng A 2004;386:408–14.
[47] Adachi K, Hutchings IM. Wear-mode mapping for the
micro-scale abrasion test. Wear 2003;255:23–9.
[48] Cozza RC. Third abrasive wear mode: is it possible? J Mater
Res Technol 2014;3:191–3.