Comparison of the quality of rail steel from the nineteenth century converter processes and the modern oxygen-converter process

Sample no.	Manufacturer	Year of production	Steel grade	Height of the rail (mm)	Width of the rail foot (mm)
1	Dortmunder Union	1875	Low carbon steel	101*	93
2	Phoenix West	189?	Medium carbon steel	130*	116
3	Aachener Hütte	1879	Low carbon steel	117*	109
4	KRUPP	1894	Medium carbon steel	127*	100
5	ArcelorMittal Poland S.A.	2024	R260	149	125
6	ArcelorMittal Poland S.A.	2024	R350HT	149	125

*Measurement after operation in the axis of symmetry of the rail.

ArcelorMittal Poland S.A. rail in steel grade R260.

ArcelorMittal Poland S.A. rail in steel grade R350HT.

Table 2

Chemical composition of individual samples for the main elements.

Sample no.	Mass %
Sample no.	C	Si	Mn	P	S	Cr	Al	V	N
1	0.173	0.53	0.589	0.105	0.06	0.008	0.002	0.013	0.0332
2	0.46	0.011	0.418	0.064	0.07	0.009	0.007	0.001	0.0051
3	0.20	0.034	0.222	0.096	0.045	0.007	0.002	0.006	0.0121
4	0.422	0.19	0.69	0.075	0.046	0.010	0.003	0.01	0.0112
5	0.71	0.31	1.04	0.0073	0.014	0.008	0.003	0.003	0.0070
6	0.79	0.38	1.12	0.011	0.013	0.07	0.004	0.002	0.0057

Table 3

Chemical composition of individual samples for residual elements.

Sample no.	Mass %
Sample no.	Cu	Ni	Sn	As	Nb	Ti	Mo	B	Cu + 10Sn
1	0.149	0.014	<0.001	0.038	0.001	0.001	<0.001	0.0005	0.159
2	0.135	0.027	0.002	0.038	0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.0003	0.155
3	0.009	0.013	<0.001	0.019	0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.0004	0.019
4	0.08	0.01	<0.001	0.023	0.001	<0.010	<0.010	0.0003	0.09
5	0.02	0.014	0.0006	0.001	0.001	0.0009	0.003	0.0004	0.026
6	0.03	0.016	0.002	0.001	0.001	0.0009	0.006	0.0005	0.05

Table 4

Range of chemical composition of the R260 and R350HT grades for the main elements.

Steel grade	Mass %
Steel grade	C	Si	Mn	P max	S max	Cr	Al max	V max	N max
R260*	0.62–0.80	0.15–0.58	0.70–1.20	0.025	0.025	≤0.15	0.004	0.030	0.009
R350HT*	0.72–0.80	0.15–0.58	0.70–1.20	0.020	0.025	≤0.15	0.004	0.030	0.009

*The requirements are given for steel in the liquid state.

Table 5

Range of chemical composition of the R260 and R350HT grades for residual elements.

Steel grade	Mass %
Steel grade	Cu	Ni	Sn	As	Nb	Ti	Mo	B	Cu + 10Sn
R260	0.15	0.10	0.030	—	0.01	0.025	0.02	—	0.35
R350HT	0.15	0.10	0.030	—	0.04	0.025	0.02	—	0.35

Images of the ferrite-pearlite microstructure of the Dortmunder Union rail. a) magn. 100x, b) magn. 500x.

Images of the ferrite-pearlite microstructure of the Phoenix West rail. Coarse-plate perlite is visible. a) magn. 100x, b) 500X.

Images of the ferrite-pearlite microstructure of the Aachener Hütte rail. a) magn. 100x, b) magn. 500x.

Images of the microstructure of the ferrite-pearlite Krupp rail. a) magn. 100x, b) magn. 500x.

Images of the microstructure of a fully pearlitic rail from ArcelorMittal Poland S.A. in the R260 grade. a) magn. 100x, b) magn. 500x.

Images of the microstructure of a fine-plate perlite rail of the ArcelorMittal Poland S.A. in the R350HT grade. a) magn. 100x, b) magn. 500x.

Images of the microstructure of (a) steel grade R260 and (b) steel grade R350HT (b).

Table 6

Hardness values for individual rails (HBW 2.5|187.5).

Sample no.	Manufacturer	Steel grade	Hardness in the centre of the head, HBW				Hardness on the running surface, HBW
Sample no.	Manufacturer	Steel grade	1	2	3	mean	Hardness on the running surface, HBW
1	Dortmunder Union	Low carbon steel	204	192	189	195	—
2	Phoenix West	Medium carbon steel	168	171	165	168	—
3	Aachener Hütte	Low carbon steel	153	140	146	146	—
4	KRUPP	Medium carbon steel	198	205	198	200	—
5	ArcelorMittal Poland S.A.	R260	274	271	279	275	Avg. 285
6	ArcelorMittal Poland S.A.	R350HT	387	385	382	385	Avg. 374

Image of a non-metallic inclusion – low carbon steel (Aachener Hütte), sample No. 3.

Mapping in the area of discontinuity – low carbon steel (Aachener Hütte), sample No. 3.

Location of the sample for assessing oxide cleanness in the rail head [9].

Table 7

Assessment of oxide cleanness.

Sample no.	Area of the assessed surface (mm²)	Type of inclusions	Number of inclusions determined by the classification number						First subtotal	K3
			3	4	5	6	7	8
			Factor f _g
			0.5	1	2	5	10	20
1	200	OA	1	0	0	0	0	0	0.5	60
		OS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		OG	15	2	1	0	0	0	11.5
2	200	OA	0	0	1	0	0	0	2	42.5
		OS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		OG	5	0	2	0	0	0	6.5
3	200	OA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	120
		OS	2	3	0	0	0	1	24
		OG	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4	200	OA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	25
		OS	2	2	1	0	0	0	5
		OG	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
5	200	OA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		OS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		OG	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
6	200	OA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		OS	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
		OG	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/msp-2024-0033 | Journal eISSN: 2083-134X (formerly 2083-124X) | Journal ISSN: 2083-1331

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 39 - 54

Submitted on: Jun 20, 2024

Accepted on: Sep 18, 2024

Published on: Nov 8, 2024

Published by: Wroclaw University of Science and Technology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

Railway rail,

Steel production process,

Chemical composition,

Steel cleanness,

Mechanical properties

Related subjects:

Materials sciences,

Materials sciences, other,

Nanomaterials,

Functional and smart materials,

Materials characterization and properties

© 2024 Sylwester Żak, Tomasz Ropka, published by Wroclaw University of Science and Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 42 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)

Comparison of the quality of rail steel from the nineteenth century converter processes and the modern oxygen-converter process

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Table 6

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20

Figure 21

Figure 22

Figure 23

Figure 24

Figure 25

Figure 26

Figure 27

Figure 28

Table 7

Figure 29

Figure 30