Accepted Manuscript

Near threshold fatigue crack propagation in railways’ steels:comparison of two

testing techniques

D.F.C. Peixoto, P.M.S.T. de Castro

PII: S0167-8442(15)20152-8
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2015.06.008
Reference: TAFMEC 1593

To appear in: Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics

Please cite this article as: D.F.C. Peixoto, P.M.S.T. de Castro, Near threshold fatigue crack propagation in
railways’ steels:comparison of two testing techniques, Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics (2015), doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2015.06.008

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Near threshold fatigue crack propagation in railways’ steels:
comparison of two testing techniques

D.F.C. Peixoto 1* , P.M.S.T. de Castro 2

1
INEGI – Institute of Science and Innovation in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 400, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto,
Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
*dpeixoto@inegi.up.pt

Abstract
Mode I fatigue crack growth thresholds of steels for rail and wheel used in railways were
determined according to two different procedures. Although fatigue crack propagation data in
the Paris regime is usually straightforward to obtain, the same does not apply to the threshold
regime, where crack growth rates are very small up to inexistent, and therefore tests are very
time consuming. Furthermore, the very small fatigue crack growth rates involved in testing
for threshold determination require very thorough and careful experimental procedures if
extraneous effects - as for example interaction effects such as crack retardation or
acceleration - are to be avoided. Two methods for evaluation of fatigue crack growth
threshold value of the range of stress intensity factor were used: load shedding and constant
maximum stress intensity factor with increasing load ratio R (R=minimum load/maximum
load), taking into account the ASTM standard E647 prescriptions. The obtained results and
lessons learned in conducting these tests are discussed, and the data generated is compared
with data published.

1 Introduction
Fatigue crack growth rate tests involve cyclic loading of notched specimens which have been
pre-cracked in fatigue. During these experimental tests the crack length (a) is recorded as a
function of the number of cycles (N), together with the maximum and minimum values of the
applied load. Using the recorded data and an appropriated methodology it is possible to
obtain the fatigue crack growth rates (da/dN) and the corresponding values of the crack-tip
stress-intensity factor range (K). The obtained results can be represented as da/dN = f(K)
plots which provide results independent from the geometry. This enables comparison of
obtained results from a variety of specimen configurations and loading conditions assuming
the similitude concept which implies that cracks of different lengths subjected to the same
nominal K value will grow by equal increments of crack extension per cycle [1].

Several studies of fatigue crack growth rates in wheel and rail steels are published in the
technical literature. Among these, El-Shabasy and Lewandowski present in [2] the effect of
changes in load ratio, R, and test temperature on the fatigue crack growth behaviour of fully
pearlitic eutectoid steel. This study revealed a significant effect of load ratio on the Paris law
slope for a given test temperature and an increase in Kth as the test temperature decreases.
The effect of rail residual stress in fatigue crack growth rates was studied by Skyttebol et al.
and presented in [3]. The authors reported that due to the high tensile stresses in the lower
part of the rail head a very high stress ratio is observed, 0.7 ≤ R ≤ 0.9, implying that existing
cracks are fully open during the load passage. The fatigue crack growth behaviour of a
premium rail steel was studied using the modified crack layer theory by Aglan and Gan [4].
In that work, the fatigue test specimens were sliced longitudinally from the head of a new rail
near the web which represents the microstructure of the base material, avoiding the vertical
microstructure gradient inside the rail. Bulloch presents in [5] a study of fatigue crack growth
in welded rail steels concluding that the deformed rail steel exhibited fatigue crack growth
rates that are slightly faster than undeformed rail steel and weld metal growth data are
appreciably faster than rail steel growth results. Zain et al., [6], tested compact tension
specimens (C(T)) made from rail steel with a load ratio of 0.1 while simultaneously recorded
the acoustic emission signal in order to obtain the acoustic emission count rate associated
with the stress intensity factor. Baseline fatigue crack growth data at R = 0 of different rail
materials which were in service on U.S. in 1978 have been generated by Feddersen et al., [7],
in order to develop a correlation of mechanical and metallurgical factors affecting crack
behaviour in rail steels.

In welded construction initial defects of considerable size may occur; but in most rail and
wheel applications cracks develop in service from crack free material, and may be identified
as very small cracks if adequate NDT is used. Therefore, further to the more common
determination of Paris law constants it is important to characterize the near-threshold regime
and determine the fatigue crack growth threshold, because for crack propagation in actual
service the initial values of K are expected to be rather low. It is considered that the fatigue
crack growth threshold is the asymptotic value of K at which da/dN approaches zero, or
– 10
according to the ASTM E647 standard da/dN < 10 m/cycle, and if the stress intensity
factor for a given crack is below the threshold value, the crack is assumed to be non-
propagating. At near-threshold levels, several factors, such as microstructure, environment,
loading condition, and crack size, significantly affect crack propagation rates, [8].

The fatigue crack growth threshold Kth is experimentally defined by the ASTM standard

E647, where a load reduction methodology is applied. Using this technique it is observed that
Kth , decreases as the (positive) load ratio is increased. Crack closure is generally considered
to be the principal reason for the load ratio effect on the fatigue threshold value in metallic
materials [9]. This could be explained by the fact that the methodology described in the
ASTM E647 standard uses a load reduction technique where the maximum and minimum
loads are reduced, and, when the threshold is being reached, during the unloading process the
crack will close first at some point along the wake or blunt at the crack tip, reducing the load
effect at the crack tip [10]. This phenomenon is schematized on Figure 1, adapted from [11].

According to this interpretation, [10], the K-decreasing (ASTM E647) methodology leads to
overestimates of fatigue crack growth (FCG) threshold since the load is shed in steps and the
amount of crack-wake plastic deformation produced during a test is directly related to the
magnitude of previously applied loads leading to remote plasticity- induced crack closure,
which could generate artificially high threshold values. An experimental study on two
structural steels (normalized C45 and 25CrMo4 grades) conducted by Carboni and Re gazzi to
determine the influence of the adopted technique onto the Kth value, [12], lead to conclude
that in the threshold region, traditional approaches based on K-decreasing tests tend to
systematically overestimate the Kth .

Despite of this, the test method defined by ASTM is the only standardized test designed to
produce the range of fatigue crack thresholds. Among others, the constant Kmax with
increasing Kmin method, [13], was implemented to solve this problem, as this maintains high
R − ratio levels that keep the entire crack open, as schematized in Figure 2, circumventing the
difficulties and limitations mentioned above.
2 Near-threshold propagation fatigue crack growth rates experimental
procedure
In the present study the K-decreasing test procedure, described in the ASTM E647 standard,
and the constant Kmax with increasing Kmin procedure were used to characterize fatigue crack
propagation near the threshold.

According to the ASTM E647 standard the K-decreasing test procedure is suited for rates
below 10−5 mm/cycle. The constant Kmax with increasing Kmin method was used in
comparison to the K-decreasing test procedure, in order to evaluate which is able to obtain the
more conservative value of threshold.

The K-decreasing procedure is started by load cycling at a stress intensity factor range  K 

and maximum stress intensity factor (Kmax ) levels equal or greater than the terminal pre-
cracking values. Subsequently, forces are decreased (shed) as the crack grows until the lowest
K or crack growth rate of interest is achieved. This test method is described in detail by the
ASTM E647 standard to obtain the fatigue crack growth rates in the near-threshold. During
the force shedding procedure the normalized K-gradient value was kept algebraically equal or
greater than - 0.08 mm−1 :
1 d K
K gradient =   0.08mm-1 (1)
K da
as recommended by the ASTM E647 standard. This requirement aims at ensuring that the
step under a given load range does not correspond to such a large crack length variation

 a  increment that the K of the previous step is exceeded. This will prevent anomalous

data resulting from reductions in the stress-intensity factor and associated transient growth
rates. Force shedding of adjacent steps does not exceeded 10% and new fatigue crack growth
rates were calculated only after a minimum crack extension of 0.50 mm, in order to avoid
effects associated with discrete variations of load range: during the extension of up to 0.50
mm no crack growth data is recorded since it may be influenced by transient growth
phenomena.

For the K-decreasing tests where force is shed in decremental steps the secant method was
used to calculate the fatigue crack growth rates. Three different load ratios R = 0.1, 0.4 and
0.7 were tested, as the value of the threshold is function of the load ratio when the K-
decreasing test is used.

As an alternative to the K-decreasing method, the constant Kmax with increasing Kmin
methodology – just briefly mentioned in section 8.7 ‘Alternative K-control test procedures’
of ASTM E647) - was used to determine the fatigue crack growth thresholds. For the constant
Kmax with increasing Kmin test procedure, the applied loads are changed to maintain the Kmax
value constant, while the Kmin value is increased until the crack growth rate reaches 1× 10−7
mm/cycle, the value specified by the ASTM E647 standard for the threshold.

Similarly to the K-decreasing test, during the constant Kmax with increasing Kmin test the
normalized K-gradient value was kept algebraically equal or greater than - 0.08 mm−1 . As it
could be expected, since the Kmax is kept constant and the Kmin is increased along the test, the
load ratio increases as the Kmin is increased. This behaviour enables to obtain a threshold
value that is independent from the load ratio.

3 Materials
The chemical composition of the wheel and rail materials is presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Wheel material chemical composition in %.

C Mn Si P S Ni Mo Al Cr Cu
0.49 0.74 0.25 0.01 <0.005 0.18 0.06 0.03 0.26 0.12

Table 2. Rail material chemical composition in %.

C Mn Si P S Ni Mo Al Cr Cu
0.72 1.1 0.35 0.02 0.01 0.02 <0.001 <0.005 0.02 <0.02

Tensile tests according to NP EN 10002-1 standard were made with the studied materials. In
these tests round specimens with 10mm diameter were used. They were extracted from the
wheel tire in the tangential direction and from the rail head in the longitudinal direction. The
obtained results are shown on Table 3.
 Table 3. Mechanical properties of wheel and rail materials

Young Yield Tensile Reduction

Elongation
Material modulus strength strength in area
[%]
[GPa] [MPa] [MPa] [%]
wheel 197 503 859 18 51
rail 191 504 950 13 19

4 Specimens and experimental apparatus

According to the ASTM E647 standard two main types of specimens can be used in fatigue
crack growth rates tests, the compact specimen, C(T), which is a single edge-notch specimen
that can be loaded in tension and the middle tension, M(T), which is a center cracked
specimen that can be loaded in either tension-tension or tension-compression. In this work
C(T) specimens were used because this type of specimen has the advantage of requiring a
smaller amount of material then the M(T) specimen, only tension-tension loads (R > 0) were
used. Figure 3 shows the adopted dimensions for the C(T) specimens, according to the ASTM
E647 standard.

The notch was opened by electric discharge machining (EDM). To calculate the stress
intensity factor range (ΔK) the stress intensity factor calibration presented in the ASTM E647
standard for C(T) specimens can be used, as follows:

P 2  
3 
K  0.886  4.64 -13.32 2  14.72 3 -5.6 4  (2)
B W 1-  2

where:
α = a/W,
a: crack length;
W: specimen width;
B: specimen thickness;
P: load range
This calibration is valid only when a/W ≥ 0.2, which was verified in the presented tests.
The C(T) specimens were taken from an worn wheel of a Spanish high speed train (AVE),
with the notch oriented in the radial direction (R), and from an unused UIC60 rail with the
notch oriented perpendicularly to the rolling surface, as shown in Figure 4. This orientation
was chosen since it represents the most dangerous crack propagation direction, that could
cause the total separation of the rail or of the wheel.
In the case of the rail, Figure 4b shows that the CT specimens were machined with the notch
face directly on the rail rolling surface; the same applies to the wheel CT specimens, with the
notch surface corresponding to the wheel thread.

All fatigue crack growth (FCG) tests were performed using an MTS ® servo- hydraulic
machine of 100 kN capacity, shown in Figure 5, at room temperature. A sinusoidal waveform
and a frequency of 10Hz were used in all tests.
The used servo-hydraulic machine was equipped with two traveling microscopes in order to
measure crack length variations down to 0.01mm, using digital rulers and 20x magnifiers, as
shown in Figure 6.

Because a visual measurement technique was used, the average value of the two surface
crack lengths was considered for all calculations, as recommended in the followed standard.
The orientation of the crack plane is perpendicular to the rail or to the wheel tire. Peixoto and
Ferreira give in [14] further details of the specimens’ location in the rail and the wheel, as
well as presenting basic Paris law data for both materials.

5 Results and discussion

The Kth values were calculated from the load and crack length at which the crack growth is
less than 0.1 mm per 1×106 cycles (da/dN<1×10−7 mm/cycles).
Figure 7 shows the obtained near-threshold fatigue crack growth rates for the K-decreasing
test and the Paris law regime results already presented in [14]. In this figure a good
agreement between the fatigue crack rates in the near-threshold and the Paris law regime is
noticed, although different data treatment methods were used for both regimes: polynomial
for the Paris regime, and secant for the near threshold regime.

The obtained Kth values are shown in Table 4 for the K-decreasing test and in Table 5 for
the Kmax with increasing Kmin test. For completeness of data presentation, the final value of
Kmax , the Kmax th, is also included in both tables.
 Table 4. ASTM E647 K-decreasing test results.

Material R ΔKth [MPa m1/2 ] Kma x th [MPa m1/2 ] K-gradient [1/mm]

0.1 9.25 10.28 -0.080
Wheel 0.4 6.19 10.32 -0.080
0.7 3.42 11.41 -0.070
0.1 10.03 11.14 -0.060
Rail 0.4 6.42 10.71 -0.060
0.7 3.86 12.86 -0.065

Table 5. Constant Kmax with increasing Kmin test method results.

Material Rstart Rth ΔKth [MPa m1/2 ] Kma x th [MPa m1/2 ] K-gradient [1/mm]
Wheel 0.5 0.67 4.05 12 -0.075
Rail 0.5 0.67 3.95 12 -0.075

A comparison of the results obtained with the two applied experimental methodologies is
shown in Figure 8.

For the tests reported in this work, it is concluded that the ASTM method leads to higher ΔKth
values than the Kmax constant procedure, although the difference is marginal for very high R
values.

It can be observed that the measured threshold stress- intensity range for fatigue-crack
propagation, ΔKth , decreases as the load ratio is increased, a phenomenon also reported by
Boyce in [9]. In the Kmax constant procedure it is assumed that the crack stops growing in a
closure free situation due to the high R-ratio.

For the high R-ratio tested according to the ASTM procedure the obtained results are very
similar to the results obtained with Kmax constant procedure.

The data presented is based on two techniques using positive R-ratio values both for the pre-
cracking as well as for the actual FCG threshold measurement. The constant Kmax technique
is closure free, however it cannot be conducted at a specified R; further comparisons with
techniques using pre-compression as proposed e.g. in [15, 16] and not dealt with in the
present paper, should be taken into account in efforts to improve the standard procedure for
threshold determination.

The obtained results were compared with those presented in [17]. The comparison of the ΔKth
was based on load ratio (R) as shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Results from [17].

Material R-ratio ΔKth [MPa m1/2 ]

cast wheel (rim-radial) 0.1 12.97
cast wheel (rim-circumferential) 0.1 12.65
forged wheel (rim-radial) 0.1 12.07
forged wheel (rim-circumferential) 0.1 12.18

Given the direct comparability of the obtained results and data of Table 6, lower, more
conservative, values were obtained in the present work. These differences may however be
due to differences in the chemical composition or wheel fabrication process and the specific
method of measuring the crack length, in [17] the compliance technique using COD gauges –
an indirect method – was used to measure the crack length. It must be emphasized that the
same experimental technique was used in these two works – the load shedding procedure.

6 Concluding remarks
The experimental evidence obtained in this work indicates that for the same load ratio the
ASTM method leads to slightly higher ΔKth values than the Kmax constant procedure.
It was observed that the measured threshold stress- intensity range for fatigue-crack
propagation, ΔKth , decreases as the load ratio is increased.
In the Kmax constant procedure it is assumed that the crack stops growing in a closure free
situation due to the high R − ratio.
For the high R− ratio tested according to the ASTM procedure the obtained results are very
similar to the results obtained with Kmax constant procedure.
A comparison of the present data with literature values indicates that the Kth values are of

the same order of magnitude, although the present ones are slightly lower, in some cases they
are nearly 20% lower. However, since the materials were not the same this comparison those
not leads to conclusions concerning testing methods.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the Portuguese Government through FCT -
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, and colleagues at FEUP – among them C.
Albuquerque, C. Thies, M. A. V. de Figueiredo, S. M. O. Tavares, and V. Richter-Trummer.
D.F.C. Peixoto acknowledges a Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation PhD grant, number 104047-
B.

References
[1] ASTM, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates,
American Society for Testing and Materials, standard E647, 2008.
[2] A. El-Shabasy and J. Lewandowski, “Effects of load ratio, R, and test temperature on
fatigue crack growth of fully pearlitic eutectoid steel (fatigue crack growth of pearlitic
steel)”, International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 26, pp. 305–309, 2004.
[3] A. Skyttebol, B. Josefson, and J. Ringsberg, “Fatigue crack gro wth in a welded rail
under the influence of residual stresses”, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 72, no.
2, pp. 271–285, 2005.
[4] H. Aglan and Y. Gan, “Fatigue crack growth analysis of a premium rail steel”, Journal
of Materials Science, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 389–397, 2001.
[5] J. Bulloch, “Fatigue crack growth studies in rail steels and associated weld metal”,
Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 75–84, 1986.
[6] M. Zain, N. Jamaludin, Z. Sajuri, M. Yusof, and Z. Hanafi, “Acoustic emission study of
fatigue crack growth in rail track material”, in: National Conference in Mechanical
Engineering Research and Postgraduate Studies (2nd NCMER), pp. 82–90, 2010.
[7] C. Feddersen and D. Broek, “Fatigue crack propagation in rail steels”, ASTM STP 644,
pp. 414 – 429, 1978.
[8] P. Liaw, “Overview of crack closure at near-threshold fatigue crack growth levels”,
Mechanics of Fatigue Crack Closure, ASTM STP 982, pp. 62–92, 1988.
[9] B. Boyce and R. Ritchie, “Effect of load ratio and maximum stress intensity on the
fatigue threshold in Ti–6Al–4V”, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, vol. 68, no. 2, pp.
129 – 147, 2001.
[10] S. Forth, J. Newman Jr, and R. Forman, “On generating fatigue crack growth
thresholds”, International Journal of Fatigue, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 9–15, 2003.
[11] S. Smith and R. Piascik, “An indirect technique for determining closure- free fatigue
crack growth behaviour”, ASTM STP 1372, pp. 109 – 122, 2000.
[12] M. Carboni and D. Regazzi, “Effect of the experimental technique onto R dependence
of ∆Kth ”, Procedia Engineering, 11th International Conference on the Mechanical
Behaviour of Materials (ICM11), vol. 10, pp. 2937 – 2942, 2011.
[13] R. Davenport and R. Brook, “The stress intensity range in fatigue”, Fatigue and
Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, vol. 1, pp. pp. 151–158, 1979.
[14] D.F.C. Peixoto and L.A. Ferreira, "Fatigue crack propagation behavior in railway
steels", International Journal of Structural Integrity, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 487-500, 2013.
[15] S.C. Forth, J.C. Newman, Jr., and R. G. Forman, “Evaluation of fatigue crack
thresholds using various experimental methods”, Journal of ASTM International, vol. 2,
no. 6, paper ID JAI12847, 2005.
[16] M. Carboni, L. Patriarca, and D. Regazzi, “Determination of ΔKth by compression pre-
cracking in a structural steel”, Journal of ASTM International, vol. 6, no. 9, paper ID
JAI102617, 2009.
[17] S. Sivaprasad, S. Tarafder, V. Ranganath, and N. Parida, “Fatigue and fracture
behaviour of forged and cast railway wheels,” in 11th International Conference on
Fracture, Turin, Italy, March 2005, pp. 20–25.
Figures

Figure 1. Schematic presentation of the ASTM E647 load shedding method for threshold
determination.

Figure 2. Schematic presentation of nominal values of Pma x, P min , K ma x and Kmin as a function of the
crack length a , along the constant Kmax with increasing K min test.
 Figure 3. Wheel and rail C(T) specimens dimensions [mm].

a) Wheel C(T) specimens b) Rail C(T) specimens.

Figure 4. Location for C(T) specimens extraction.
Figure 5. MTS® servo-hydraulic machine used to perform the fatigue crack growth tests.

Figure 6. Experimental apparatus for fatigue crack growth measurements.

 a) Wheel material b) Rail material
Figure 7. Fatigue crack growth rates.

a) Wheel material results b) Rail material results

Figure 8. Comparison of threshold results using the two different methodologies.

 Near threshold fatigue crack propagation in railways’ steels:
comparison of two testing techniques

D.F.C. Peixoto 1*, P.M.S.T. de Castro 2

1
INEGI – Institute of Science and Innovation in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 400, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto,
Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
*dpeixoto@inegi.up.pt

Highlights
 Mode I fatigue crack growth thresholds of steels for rail and wheel used in railways
were determined;
 Two methods for evaluation of range of stress intensity factor for fatigue crack growth
threshold were used: load shedding and constant maximum stress intensity factor with
increasing load ratio R (R=minimum load/maximum load);
 The data presented and learned lessons in conducting these texts are discussed;
 Data generated is compared with data published.