Assessment of

Vehicle Dynamics

and it’s impact over

Track Degradation
NITISH KUMAR RANJAN
Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer(Engg)
S.W.RAILWAY
Loads on track

•STATIC LOAD
weight of rail vehicle at rest

•DYNAMIC LOAD
additional load above static load(time dependent)

•IMPACT LOAD
highest load(high frequency; short duration; created by track& vehicle
irregularities)
Dynamic Augment of Vertical Load

• For speed up to 100kmph

Dynamic Augment or Speed Factor =V2/3x104

• For speed above 100kmph

Dynamic Augment or Speed Factor =4.5 V2/105 – 1.5 V3/107

(V is the speed in kmph)

Note:- This is independent of Vehicle characteristics

Dynamic Augment(RDSO: C-100 Report)
Assessment of Vehicle dynamics

• Wheel Impact Load Detector(WILD)

• Unmanned intelligent trackside data acquisition system

• Strain gauges stuck on web of rail

• Measures shear strain corresponding to Shear load

• Records 12 values of wheel impacts for every wheel

Criterion of WILD alarm
Alarm Max Dynamic Impact Load Action to be taken
Load for a Factor for a
wheel wheel
i) Coaching stock- intimation to
be given to the primary/secondary
depot for attending the defects.
>= 2.0
Maintenance >= 20T
<4.5 ii) Freight stock- intimation to be
given to rake terminating point for
attending the defects.

Thorough examination by TXR at

TXR point for checking any
damageable defect and to decide
Critical >=35T >=4.5 for detachment or to allow the
stock to run up to train
terminating point.
WILD alarms generated on Gadag-Ballari section

Nos. of Nos. of Nos. of Nos of trains

YEAR WHEEL maintenance alarms critical alarms trains generated maintenance and
generated generated passed critical alarm
Nov 2017
To 4639076 15858 35 13623 5775
Nov 2018

• 42% of trains generates alarms

• 0.34% of wheels generates maintenance alarms

Action Taken on Critical Alarms (few examples)
SN Vehicle Nos. Date of Magnitude Action taken Observations
critical of alarm
alarm
1 SC GSCN 29.11.17 ILF=5.23 Coach was detached i)coach was allowed to run
96286 IL=33.76 at Tirupati station on at sectional speed for
30.11.17 and one almost 450kms.
wheel was replaced ii)one weld failure took
place in the section.

2 SC GSCN 03.12.17 ILF=3.81 Coach was detached i)coach was allowed to run
14241 IL=35.95 at Kakinada port at sectional speed for
station on 06.12.17 almost 1000km.
and wheel was ii)one weld failure took
replaced. place in the section.

3 SC GS 09443 14.01.18 ILF=4.6 No action was taken i)coach was allowed to run
IL=47.46 at sectional speed for four
days. Even after second
18.01.18 ILF=2.83 Coach was detached critical alarm it ran for
IL=35.00 at tirupati station on 450km.
19.01.18 ii)one weld failure took
place in the section.
Action Taken on Critical Alarms (few examples)
SN Vehicle nos Date of Magnitude Action taken Observations
critical of alarm
alarm
4 SC WGSCN 16.01.18 ILF=2.38 No defect noticed. Defective coach was allowed
99241 IL=35.56 to run at sectional speed for
27 days. It was detached
03.02.18 ILF=3 Skid marks were only after fourth critical
IL=38 found on 4th wheel at alarm got generated.
TXR point

09.02.18 ILF=3.13 Skid marks were

IL=37.88 found on 4th wheel at
TXR point

11.02.18 ILF=3.12 Coach was detached

IL=35.57 at Tirupati station
5 CR WGSCN 07.04.18 ILF=4.79 Shelled thread was Coach was allowed to run
97239 IL=39.58 found even after defect was noticed
in visual inspection.

6 CR BOXN 19.11.18 ILF=2.15 Metal deposition was Coach was allowed to run
25010106687 IL=40.00 found over wheel even after defect was noticed
in visual inspection.
Stress Calculation( for 22.9T axle load)

Stress Type 50 kmph 60 kmph 75 kmph 100 kmph

(Kg/mm2 ) (DA 43%) (DA 47%) (DA 53.5%) (DA 72%)

Bending Stresses
9.68 9.93 10.34 11.51
due to Wheel load

Residual Stress 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50

Thermal Stresses w.r.t

11.32 11.32 11.32 11.32
45.5 deg C differential

Due to Unforeseen
0.97 0.99 1.03 1.15
Condition
Total Stress 46.47 46.74 47.19 48.48
Maximum Permissible
Stress 46.80 46.80 46.80 46.80
(Yield Stress)
Impact over Track Degradation

•Rail is most important component of track structure and it is the only component
which has direct interaction with rolling stock.

•Effect of dynamic forces can be represented in true sense by assessing the

degradation in rails.

•There is no confirmed correlation available to relate the level of dynamic forces and
degradation in track structures because there are various factors which contribute
significantly in track degradation like vehicle condition, thermal stress, over loading,
quality of track components, track geometry etc.;

•Wear, rail/weld failures, IMRs, scabbing etc.; are few parameters which can be
used to show the degradation in rails due to dynamic forces.

•Plastic deformations took place in rails and rail/weld becomes weaker by repeated
hammering under such load. A variation in USFD results is other parameter to
shows the deterioration of health of track over a period of time.
Comparison of USFD Test Results
Rail testing Weld Testing
Sl No Total Month/Year Remarks
OBS(R) OBS(W) DFW(O) DFW(R)

1 98 395 -- -- 493 June-17

Almost 64%
increase in
2 185 357 -- ---- 542 Sep-17
defects in USFD
Rail Testing
3 203 477 -- ---- 680 Dec-17
between four
rail testing in a
4 232 578 --- --- 810 Mar-18 span of 10
months.

2017-18
5 ---- ---- 2778 240 3018 (Mar-18) Almost 43%
(3 years testing) increase in
defects in USFD
Weld Testing
2014-15 from previous
6 ---- ---- 1974 137 2111
( Mar- 15) testing.
Points to Ponder
SN Observations Recommendations
1
• Normal dynamic augment of 57.4%
Present permissible limit of
flat 50mm for coaching
• Wheel of flat tyre of size 18x25x3mm stock/locomotives and 60mm
produces dynamic augment of 257% for Goods stock needs to be
reviewed.

2 • Permissible stress limit of 46.8kg/mm2 for

60kg 90 UTS rail
Both criterions for
• Permitted load on a wheel comes out maintenance and critical
around 10-12t Which in line with 22.9t alarm need to be revised with
axle load. increase of speed and axle
load.
• Up to 35t impact load on a wheel; vehicle
is allowed to run with maximum speed,
which is 300% dynamic augment.
Points to Ponder
SN Observations
3 • Many of the defects which can
generate high wheel impact loads /
high ILF are not classified as defects
in the regular maintenance.
• Dependency on visual examination is
major impediment to improve the
quality of maintenance of rolling
stock and reducing its impact on
track at higher speed with higher axle
load.
4 • WILD can assess impact only in
terms of vertical load.
• With increase in axle load and speed, vertical load of each wheel.
assessment of thrust on rails at curves
are very important
Recommendations
• Association of American
Railroads(AAR) has created AAR
ATSI (Advanced Technology
Safety Initiative) Programme as
an Equipment Health Monitoring
Service (EHMS) which uses
snapshots data of WILD.
• such technology helps in condition
monitoring & predictive
maintenance duly removing
dependency on visual examination
for maintenance.
Truck Performance Detector is
another wayside detector which can
measure the lateral load as well as
 Conclusion
• Impact of vehicle dynamic forces are much bigger contributory in degradation of track
which further enhanced with increase in speed.

• 64% increase in defects during USFD rail testing cannot be just because of thermal
stresses, poor track maintenance practices.

• Many permissible limits of maintenance & monitoring are also required to be

changed so the dynamic forces can be brought down.

• Status of action taken & findings of defects after critical alarms by coach & wagon
to be monitored on real time.

• Stipulated of life for rails should be on the basis of “peak tonnage” rather than just
on tonnage.

• GMT needs to be revised as GMPT (GROSS MILLION PEAK TONNAGE).

Provision of Thick Web Switches for Increasing
Speed on Turnouts to 50 Kmph
- A Case Study for Gooty (GY) – Renigunta
(RU) Section of
South Central Railway
By Akshay Kumar Jha, CTE/ SCR
A. Balaji Rao, Dy.CE/ TRACK1/ SCR
Kaushal Pandey, Sr.ADEN/ GY/ GTL/ SCR
Int roduct ion

In order to sustain the increased traffic demands, Indian

Railways have gone for track modernisation in a big way and up
gradation of its existing network .
As a part of progressive upgradation, GQ and its diagonals
identified for increasing the speed to 160kmph under mission
RAFTAR.
 In view of contemplated increase in sectional speed to 160
kmph, its benefits cannot be realized completely unless loop
lines have speed potentiality of 50 kmph .
2
NEED FOR HIGHER SPEED ON TURNOUT
(Why 50 kmph over t urnout and looplines?)

▪ Compared to speed over turnouts on advanced foreign

countries, speeds are restrictive on Indian Railways
▪ To avoid time loss while trains run on loop lines.
▪ To achieve higher average speed and line capacity without
increasing max. permissible speed.
▪ Overall, it will improve the throughput of the section

3
Need f or Thick Web swit ches
NEED FOR HIGHER SPEED ON TURNOUT

▪ In order to achieve higher speeds on turnout the existing

overriding switches need to be replaced with TWS which
are sturdier and increase the safety of the train running
over it.
▪ RDSO has conducted study as per the directives of Rly
Board and issued pre-requisites of Fixed infrastructure for
increasing speed over Turnout and loop lines vide Letter
no CT/ PTX/ TO/ Speed dt 29.08.18

5
 Pre Requisites of Fixed Inf rastructure ( Engineering)

▪ To be planned in Continuous stretch to gain perceptible

advantage.
▪ All Turnouts to be replaced by Thick web curved switches
▪ 1in 8.5 Turnouts and Trap switches to be replaced by 1in 12 TWS.
▪ For T/ outs taking off from curved track speed potentiality should
be determined as per site condition
▪ Turn in curve/ connecting curve should have speed potential of 50
kmph and radius of 441m and extra 150mm shoulder ballast with
sleeper spacing of 65 cm
▪ Loop line to have LWR/ SWR (1540 sleeper density, 250/ 100mm 6
Ballast cushion).
Pre Requisit es of Fixed Inf rast ruct ure ( S & T)

▪ Clamp Lock Point Machines with speed potential > 30 kmph.

▪ Arrangement for detecting facing points.
▪ Modification in Home Signal aspect to know passing/ stopping
status of train.
▪ Improvement in visibility of loop line starter signals ,use of
LED signals is essential.
▪ Suitable changes in G&SR to permit such higher speeds.
▪ RDSO suggests to try 50 kmph on select stations having
Automatic Train protection to control speed on turnouts in
7
excess of 50 kmph.
Pre Requisit es of Fixed Inf rast ruct ure (OHE)

▪ Changes in OHE according to modified track.

▪ OHE of loop line to be of overlap type only.

▪ Contact wire gradient, relative gradient, tension, presage of

OHE, etc. to be implemented (as per RB guidelines).

▪ Checking of OHE should be carried out initially with tower

wagon

▪ Electric loco trial also to be carried out.

8
Pre Requisit es of Fixed Inf rast ruct ure (Power
and Rolling St ock)

▪ Higher speed of 50 kmph on T/ O only for coaching trains in

the first phase.
▪ Speed of freight trains which have inferior suspension
system as compared to coaching trains to be kept at 30
kmph only in the initial stage – to be reviewed after 12
months.
▪ Oscillation trial with heaviest and lightest freight and
coaching stock should be conducted.
▪ Right powering as stipulated by CRS to be ensured.
9
Implement at ion St udies on S.C Railway

▪ It is proposed to conduct implementation studies on

section where TWS switches are already replaced on
mainline to a larger extant
▪ Majority of stations can be modified without major yard
remodeling works
▪ Supervisors and staff are conversant with maintenance
aspects of TWS
▪ The section identified is on GQand IDRoute
10
Case St udy (on SCR)

▪ Proposed to implement on GY-RU section (GQ route) “B”

Group between Kadapa – Gooty. SCR map GY– HX

Salient Features of HX –GY section

▪ Total number of stations ▪ 20

▪ Number of Stations to be taken up
in Phase - 1 ▪ 15
▪ Number of Stations to be taken up
in Phase - 2 ▪ 3
11
Total Length 154.73 Km
Planning f or Execution

▪ Phase 1
▫ 15 yards –scope -involves only replacement of
1in 8.5 SS and trap switches, extension of existing
bridges on over shoot lines, increasing sleeper
density and deep screening of loop lines.
▪ Phase 2
▫ 3 yards-scope- where top points are on curves and
requires flattening of approach curves involving land
acquisition and major yard modifications as CSR is
getting reduced. 12
 Progress of Work

LINE POPULATION OF TURNOUTS(NOS) TOTAL ALREADY PROGRESS BALANCE

REPLACED DURING THE AS ON
1 in 16 1 IN12 1IN 8.5 TRAP
WITH TWS YEAR 18-19 DATE
(NOS) as on (NOS) (NOS)
01.04.18

MAIN 4 194 10 - 208 113 56 39

LOOP 1 52 27 16 96 14 0 82
TOTAL 5 246 37 16 304 127 56 121

13
Approximat e Cost of Phase-1Works

Dept Cost
(Rs in crs)
Civil 32.18
PWay 23.76
Bridges 8.42
S&T 21.83
TRD 4.6 Cr
Total 58.65

Detailed work (HX - KKM)

14
Detailed work (YGD - CLPE)
Detailed work (TU - GY)
Overall Lengths f or Connection Between 1in 8.5 SS Sand
Hump Point to 1in12 And Connection between 1in 12 T/ O on
Main Line to 1in 12 on Loop Line f or Normal Spacing:

Track centre in Radius of Connecting Overall Length in mm Overall Length in mm(1 in

mm Curve in mm (1 in 8.5 SS to 1 in 12) 12 to 1 in 12)

4755 441000 93536 91038

4900 441000 95276 92778

5100 441000 97676 95178

5300 441000 100076 97578

Note: For every 100mm increase in track centre, Overall length increases by
1200mm.
From the above table, it can be seen that there will not be any reduction in CSR
length on changing of 1in 8.5 SS with 1 in 12 TWS. 15
Permissible Speeds f or TWS laid on Curves, where
Turnouts f all on contraf lexure
Max.Permissible speed on Main Line
50 Kmph on Loop Line
With 75mm Cd With 100mm Cd

0.5°curve- 1 in 16 Contraflexure
170Kmph 185Kmph
0.7°curve- 1 in 16 Contraflexure 145Kmph 160kmph
1° curve- 1in16 Contraflexure 125Kmph 135Kmph
2° curve- 1in16 Contraflexure 95Kmph 100Kmph
1° curve- 1 in12 Contraflexure
105Kmph 120Kmph
2° curve- 1in12 Contraflexure 80Kmph 90Kmph

From the above table it can be seen that, design speed of 160Kmph on M/L
can be achieved only when curves are flattened to 0.7° and top points need
to be replaced with 1 in 16 only 16
 Recommendat ions / Suggest ions

▪ Design speed of 160Kmph on M/ L can be achieved only when

points taking off on curves (contra-flexure) are flattened to
0.7° and top points need to be replaced with 1in 16 only.
▪ The laying of 1in 8.5 switches & Trap switches on Loop lines
on New Line, Doubling, Tripling and Gauge Conversion should
not be permitted as replacement by 1 in 12 Turnout at a later
date is extremely costly option.
▪ The concept of TRR(S) on loop line should be done away with,
as speed potential of 50Kmph on Loop line will be applicable
for loaded freight trains as well in coming days.
17
 Conclusion

▪ Introduction of 50Kmph on loop line on High Speed territory is a

necessity.
▪ The work requires meticulous planning and inter-departmental
co-ordination.
▪ The cost could be prohibitive in some cases such as limitations
for laying of TWS with 1in 16 for points taking off on curves
(contra-flexure) i.e. up to 0.70 degree for achieving design
speed of 160 kmph on mainline.

18
THANK YOU!
Any questions?
You can find me at:
▪ dycetrack1@gmail.com

19
Sout h Cent ral Railway Map

20
21
VANGANUR YARD

26
MOODANUR YARD

27
 Provision of steel based self
supporting roofing system for scrap
pre – conditioning bay in Rail wheel
Factory, Yelahanka, Bengaluru

A construction experience
S. Prabhu
Chief Engineer, General
SWR, Hubballi
Site as existed before commencement of work
Scope of work/Important activities
1. Evaluation of existing structural system .
2. Designing feasible roofing system
3. Dismantling of dummy columns.
4. Anchoring arrangement and erection of columns.
5. Raising of columns and provision of column
head.
6. Fabrication of short steel columns.
Scope of work/Important activities
7. Fabrication and hoisting of lateral truss.
8. Improvement to Slenderness ratio of columns
by lateral beam.
9. Procurement of roof materials.
10.Fabrication of roofing material.
11.Erection and positioning of roof elements.
12.Finishing works viz water gutter, etc.,
 Salient features
1. Cost of work : Rs. 2.1 Cr.
2. Commencement of work : 23.08.2017.
3. Completion time : 11 months(Effective 7 months)
4. Procurement of sheet material : 4 months
(ex. India)
5. Cost of Al-Zn Galvalume sheet : Rs. 1.6 Cr.
 Salient features

6. Design consultant : NASHANTO, Bengaluru.

7. Agency : SAGA Constructions, Bengaluru.
8. Cost of roofing/Sqm : Rs. 2720.
9. Cost of truss roofing/Sqm : Rs. 7500-8300.
10.Longest span sheeted till dated on SWR
11. Earlier span was only 8m.
 Problems encountered
1. Checking of design adequacy of existing
columns.
2. Provision of Anchoring arrangement for
raising old columns. – HILTI Technique
3. Correct description and specification of
roofing materials. – ASTM A 792
Specification of roof sheet material
(ASTM A- 792)
Product:
Al-Zn coating thickness (mm) for AZ -150= 40 micron (0.04mm)

Paint + Primer :
Top= 25 micron (0.025mm)
Bottom= 12 micron (0.012mm)
Tolerance = +/- 0.04mm
Final thickness:
TCTP = 1.67 mm
Tolerance = +/- 0.04 mm
Width of sheet:
914 with tolerance +/- 2mm
 Advantages
1. Economical and cost effective in comparison to
the conventional truss – sheeting.
2. Sustainable and environmental friendly
3. Ease of construction.
4. Quick execution.
5. Aesthetically pleasing.
6. Safer execution.
7. Reduced cost of maintenance.
 Suggestions
1. Holds hope for sustainable development and
Green initiatives- applications can be proliferated
2. Provision of solar cells over self supported roofing
system will further make this system more
acceptable.
3. Standardization and codification will enhance
application more user friendly
4. Indigenous manufacturing of sheet will render the
scheme further more economical.
5. Data base and active feedback from construction
industry will further consolidate the benefits.
Before erecting the sheeting
Finished view
Cross-Over Correction with the Use
of Rail Tensor and Special Type
Rollers

Shri D.S. Rama Rao, Sr.DEN/N/SC

Shri Akshay Kumar Jha, CTE/SC
Shri V. Bhanu Prasad, SSE/PW/PDPL
 CROSSOVER LENGTH
Introduction
 Cross-overs are laid for connecting two tracks.
 The Overall length of Cross-over (OL) is the length
from SRJ to SRJ of both points on a crossover.
 The Overall length (OL) is derived based on
crossing angle and center to center distance of track.
 Inadequate cross over length leads to kinky
alignment, poor running, non-retention of fitting
on T/out etc.
 T-28 REQUIREMENT IN SCR

 SCR has 3 sets of T-28

 Deployment of T-28 not always possible for
layout correction.
 Hence, alternate method of using Rail
Tensor and Special Rollers for correction of
crossover length.
 Details of Methodology

 The crossovers which require overall length

correction normally upto maximum of 2 m can be
corrected using this method.

 Crossover point number 21-B/B-cabin/

Ramagundam was having misalignment and SR of
65 kmph.
Diameter of Roller : 40 mm
Weight of Roller : 12.15 Kg
180 mm
Mis-alignment existing in the UP line due
to insertion of Cross over 21 A & B
 Pre-Block works
Speed Restriction of 30 kmph imposed.
 Removing crib and shoulders ballast on the entire layout
 Rails cut ahead of SRJ and fish plated.
 Rails are cut at ML & T’out side equal to OL correction
Rail cuts were made at bout 6.00 m away from the
Sl.No.83.
 All Fittings were ensured for their intactness
 Ensured necessary signal cables availability
 Pre-Block works
 Sufficient number of released cut rails of
length equal to 1.60 times of Correction length
were procured and kept ready at site.
Rails and rollers kept ready at site.
 Block Working
Video link
All the Fishplates were removed at the Rail Cut locations.
The Rail cut pieces at HOC on both straight and turnout
side were removed.

 Rail tensors were applied

across the Rail Gaps on
both LH and RH on
Mainline.
 Block Working
The Fastenings of the sleepers from the rail gap and
the FS Layout last sleeper were removed and sleepers
made free as they were not needed to be shifted.
 Total FS layout lifted
using track jacks at 7
locations on either
sides and rail pieces
with rollers are
inserted.
 Block Working
Applied Rail Tensors and dragged the layout by 30cms
approximately .

 Released the Rail tensors and re-applied and

dragged by another 30 cms (Approx.)
 Continued the work of Application and Re-
application of Rail tensors and dragged the layout
till the target is reached and the Rail Gaps are
closed at HOC.
 Block Working
Using track jacks , track lifted at same 7 locations &
Removed the Rollers,rails & rail tensors lowering the
track to original level.
Closed the rail Gaps at SRJ with the same released cut
rails near HOC and fixing of fishplates at the joints .
All fastenings to be fixed
Required ballast was dumped and packed the switch
portion to ensure the proper Housing of Tongue Rails.
Point was tested and reconnected.
Block was cleared.
 Post Block Works
 Ballast was dumped back into the Layout

 Manual Packing was done duly attending the surfacing,

alignment and Boxing.

 Speed relaxed to normal duly following the stages of

consolidation

 In this case speed realxed to 120kmph from 65 kmph .

 Advantages and Limitations
By this method the crossover corrections can be done
without using T-28 cranes.
The Option is economical as compared to the work done by
T-28 cranes.
This method is suitable for the sections like Kazipet-
Balharshah, where getting block and movement of T-28 cranes
is difficult due to heavy traffic density.
In case of not getting 150 min. or more traffic block, the
work can be done in 3 split blocks of 60 min. each.
The planning and execution of work is easy
Correcting length of crossover upto 2 m can be easily done.
THANK YOU
Rails for Speeds of 160 kmph for passenger trains and 100 kmph for hi
axle load freight trains on IR – Modifications required for IRS Rail
Specifications

C. Ramamurthy,
Track Engineer, Dhaka-Chittagong-Cox’s Bazar Rail Project
Track Design Engineer, SMEC International Pty. Ltd.
Retired Executive Engineer, S.E.Rly and Founder Member, IPWE(I)
• The author has worked on railway projects under RCIP (Regional Cooperation
and Integration Project) funded by ADB in BR (Bangladesh Railway) during
2013-2015.
• Rail lines planned (new/upgrading) under RCIP were to cater for traffic
between Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Myanmar.
• The project included, among others, a new BG rail link between Dhaka &
Jessore and upgrading of a portion MG track to Dual Gauge (BG+MG)between
Dhaka & Chittagong Port, from which rail link to Agartala was planned.
• It was decided to design the track for 25t axle load traffic as most of the traffic
will be between India & Bangladesh especially the proposed traffic from main
land India to seven sisters n the Northeast and IR has announced “Mission 25”.
• Traditionally BR has been following IR practices and it continued as MR Ogle,
the IR Engineer as Advisor has guided BR in introduction of LWR and concrete
sleepers on their system acout 20 years back.
 Issues faced in specifying suitable rails for 25 t axle loads for BR
• BR has been using BS 90A rails on BG & DG tracks and were reluctant to adopt
rails heavier than 52 kg/m or 54 kg/m.
• One of the Indian Consultant companies, working at that time on a new BG Rail
Line Project, funded under Indian Line of Credit, has recommended 90 UTS 52 kg
rails for 25 axle load and BR has notified, as a policy, the use of 52 kg rails in
Indian funded projects & 54 kg rail in other projects.
• IR, at that time, has specified 60 kg 90 UTS rail for 25 t axle load and HH rails for
track with sharp curves.
• Rail stress calculations showed that IR has considered residual stresses value (6
kg/mm2) against 190 MPa (about 19 kg/mm2) specified in IRS T-12, thus
rendering 90 UTS 60 kg rail to IRS T-12 with 460 Mpa yield strength not uitable for
25 t axle load.
• According to EN rail specifications, maximum residual stress is 250 Mpa, which
made recommending 90 UTS 50 kg rail for 25 t axle load that much more difficult.
 Specifying suitable rails for 25 t axle loads for ADB funded railway
projects in BR – Solutions to Issues
• Adopted EN specifications for rails, which does not specify yield strength
• Assumed yield strength value of 528 MPa ( 60% of UTS) based on the values of yield
strength (about 64% of UYS) stated in Modern Railway Track by Esveld. Yield strength
of of about 500 Mpa was required to satisfy bending stress requirements.
• Dynamic augment calculated for speed of 80 km/h for 25 axle load freight trains.
Although Eisenmann formula could be used for calculation of dynamic amplification
factor, yet adopted IR values appropriate to 80 km/h speed, as most of the rolling
stock that will use the tracks will be of IR.
• The above satisfied theoretically the suitability of 880 MPa UTS 60 kg rail
manufactured to EN specifications for 25 t axle loads.
• However, for LWR ballastless tracks on Padma Bridge and viaducts on Dhaka-Jessore
rail link, R320Cr (1080 Mpa UTS) rail was proposed to cater for additional stresses due
to LWR.
• The rail stress calculations was presented to the then Director General, BR and
recommended for adoption of 60 kg rail for 25 axle loads.
• A policy circular was issued for adoption of 60 kg rails for all BG and DG tracks in new
constructions and gauge conversions in supersession of earlier circular.
 Validation of Assumptions regarding Yield strength of Rails
• Next step was to validate the assumptions made regarding yield strength .
• Included in rail specifications of the projects, a clause for “measurement and
reporting of yield strength along with UTS”.
• Although there was resistance initially from rail manufacturers as yield strength
measurement was not in EN specs, it was agreed to as this was not included as an
acceptance criteria for rails and no minimum value was specified.
• Rails manufactured by Pangang Group Panzhihua Steel & Vanadium Co. Ltd.,
China have been supplied to one of the projects.
• The test results (6 samples tested) show that the least yield strength value varies
from 524 Mpa to 558 Mpa. Least value of 524 Mpa is 59.5% of 880 MPa tensile
strength.
• UTS value varies from 960 MPa to 990 MPa against minimum specified value of
880 Mpa.
• Surprisingly the maximum value of residual stress is 152 MPa against specified
value of 250 MPa.
• The above results show that the rail recommended is suitable for 25 axle loads
from considerations of bending stresses with enough margin.
 Fatigue due to Repetitive Loads
• It is well known that wheel flats, rail scabs and badly executed welds result in impact loads and the
studies have shown these impact loads may be up to 6 times the nominal wheel load.
• According to WILD JPO, critical alarm level is 35 t i.e. permits impact load up to 35 t without attention.
• From “Modern Railway Track” by Esveld, maximum shear stress Ƭmax occurring at 4-6 mm below the
contact surface is given by the formula
• Ƭmax (expressed in MPa or N/mm2)= 412 √(Q/r)
• where Q is the effective wheel load , which can be taken as impact load Pi caused by wheel flat, rail scab
or bad weld in kN and r is the wheel radius in mm.
• It follows that Pi should not exceed rX(Ƭmax/412)2
• Maximum permissible value of Ƭmax depends on fu, ultimate tensile strength of rail.
• Again, according to Esveld, Ƭmax may have 2 values.
• Where wheel load is repetitive, which will initiate fatigue cracking in rail steel, value of Ƭmax should be
limited to 0.3fu.
• Where wheel load is occasional, which will cause plastic deformation of rail steel, value of Ƭmax should be
limited to 0.38fu.
• We get
Pi (repetitive < r X ( 0.3 X fu/412)2 = 5.302 X 10-7rfu2 and
Pi occasional < r X ( 0.38 X fu/412)2 = 8.507 X 10-7rfu2
 Choice of Rails suitable to withstand Impact Stresses and
Fatigue due to Repetitive Loads (contd.)
 Permissible impact wheel load Pi (shown in Table 1) is calculated taking three grades of rail steels with UTS of
1080 Mpa of IR, 1175 Mpa and 1280 MPa (from EN Rail specs) and considering 2 minimum wheel diameters of
worn wheels (1) 914 mm (from IR Schedule of Dimensions) and (2) 780 mm (from DFCC Schedule of
Dimensions).
Table-1: Permissible Values of Pi
Wagon wheel Rail with UTS of 1080 Rail with UTS of 1175 Rail with UTS of 1280
Criteria
dia. MPa MPa MPa
914 mm Pi ≤ 282.6 kN = 28.8 t Pi ≤ 334.5 kN ꞊ 34.1 t Pi ≤ 397.0 kN ꞊ 40.5 t
Fatigue Failure
P1 is Repetitive 780 mm Pi ≤ 241.2 kN = 24.6 t Pi ≤ 285.5 kN ꞊ 29.1 t Pi ≤338.8 kN ꞊ 34.5 t
Plastic 914 mm Pi ≤ 453.5 kN = 46.2 t Pi ≤ 536.7 kN ꞊ 54.7 t Pi ≤ 637.0 kN ꞊ 64.9 t
Deformation
P1 is Occasional. 780 mm Pi ≤ 387.0 kN = 39.4 t Pi ≤ 458.1 kN ꞊ 46.7 t Pi ≤ 543.6 kN ꞊ 55.4 t
 For resisting 35 t impact load (critical alarm level of WILD JPO),
• 1080 MPa tensile strength rail is not suitable;
• 1175 MPa (R350HT) tensile strength rail can be considered suitable for 914 mm dia. wheel.
• for 780 mm dia. wheel, both 1080 MPa and 1175 MPa tensile strength rails are not suitable unless higher
endurance limit values can be obtained with microalloying, etc. Or 1280 Mpa UTS rail may be required
• Alternately, the critical alarm level of WILD JPO be reduced to 25 t, a contentious proposal which the author
eperienced while working on a project “Development of Wheel Flat Detector” in RDSO, years before the
development of present “WILD”
 Choice of Rails Considering all Criteria (Bending Stresses, Impact Stresses,
Fatigue and Rail Wear)
 From what has been presented, it is evident that R350HT with minimum UTS of 1175 Mpa
is the most suitable for 25 axle loads from considerations of Bending stresses, Impact
stresses and Fatigue provided .
 For wear resistance, IR specifies HH (Head Hardened) rails. It has been brought out in one
of the papers presented in one of the seminars that consequent to the investigation into
the derailment near Hatfield in UK in 2000, the technology of head hardening has
disappeared at least one decade back and two Head Hardening Plants at Pandong Steel
Ltd. and Baotou Steel Ltd. in China were lying abandoned.
 In 2018, for one project, involving construction of a new double track major bridge with
continuous welded rails and approach tracks up to adjacent stations on either side in
Bangladesh. funded by JICA, the consultant team was considering adoption of HH (head
hardened) rails to control wear and avoid frequent rail renewals on the bridge.
 But in view of the Hatfield accident (2000) occurred due to cracks developed in HH rails
and the EN rail specifications followed in BR do not provide for HH rails, R350HT rails with
350 BHN hardness manufactured to EN rail specifications were chosen for use in the
Project.
 Thus, R350HT rail satisfies all the criteria viz., Bending stresses, Impact stresses, Fatigue
and Rail Wear. However, maintenance of conformable rail profiles by integrating rail
grinding with track maintenance is essential for controlling rate of rail wear.
 Based on what has been presented, the following modifications to IR rail specifications are suggested:
 Adoption of Realistic measured value for maximum Residual Stress. Many International rail
specifications stipulate maximum residual stress as 250 Mpa. Lower values have been reported. Lower
residual stress will improve margin available in the rails of low yield strength rails.
 Deletion of HH rails and reference to them in all related clauses.
 Inclusion of Heat Treated rails along with appropriate chemical composition and mechanical
properties. The suggested rails are
o Grade 1175 HT (equivalent to R350HT of EN 13674-1),
o Grade 1280 CrHT (equivalent to R370CrHT of EN 13674-1),
o Grade 1280 HT (equivalent to R400HT of EN 13674-1).
 Inclusion of additional qualifying tests. The suggested tests are:
o Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Test (which will help monitoring and predicting crack growth),
o Variation of Centre Line Running Surface Hardness Test of Heat Treated Rails.
 Inclusion of additional Acceptance tests. The suggested tests are:
o Oxygen content,
o Decarburisation,
o Oxide cleanliness.
 Specifying Increased Value for Minimum Yield Strength
 Specifying Endurance Limit Value .
Rails for Speeds of 160 kmph for passenger trains and
100 kmph for high axle load freight trains 0n IR –
Modifications required for IRS Rail Specifications

Thank you