Improvement in Internal Soundness of

Railway Wheel by Controlling De-

oxidation Practice in Steel-making

Srinivasan Anindita Ghosh

INTRODUCTION
 Introduction
Railway Wheels from Durgapur Steel Plant, SAIL

• Forged wheels for wagons, coaches, locomotives supplied to

IR for last 5 decades
• 100% processing though VAD
• Each wheel subjected to ultrasonic testing and magnetic
particle inspection
• Periodic fracture toughness evaluation
• Proven performance in diverse terrains and climates of the
country
 Introduction
Product Specification
 Introduction
Wheel Manufacturing: A Brief Overview

Wheel steel Bottom Ingots cut into Blocks Blocks forged into Wheel discs
Poured into
Ingots/Caster Route
*>1,052°C

1,050

1,000
Top wheel
950.0

900.0 Min Mean Max

905.2 916.1 922.8
Bottom wheel
850.0
Min Mean Max
800.0 900.7 907.4 912.6

750.0
700.0

*<700.0°C

Machined Wheels subjected to

Heat Treatment of Wheels Machined Wheels
ultrasonic testing
MOTIVATION &
OBJECTIVE
 Motivation & Objective
Motivation
• Escalation in Wheel ultrasonic rejections from 2-3 %
to 10-11 %
• Huge financial implications ~ 10 crores/month
• Affecting dispatch commitments
• Serious housekeeping & safety concerns

Objective : To minimize ultrasonic rejections of wheels

 Motivation & Objective
Ultrasonic testing of Wheel
RIM

RIM

HUB

Location of defects : Random distribution in Rim & Hub

Size of defect : Single/Multiple 20 % to 60 %, > 60%
EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND
METHODOLOGY
 Experimental Set up & methodology

Samples drawn from different defect locations

X 100 X 100

X 500 X 100
 Experimental Set up & methodology

Genesis of Inclusions –
• Deoxidation products/Slag
• Mould Powder
• Anti Piping compound
• Refractory material of BP runner system

Areas of Concern
• Inconsistent quality of mould powder – supply issues with
vendor
• Overflow tendency of slag (MgO>20%) –
-Stoppage of Dolomite addition in converter for VAD heats
-Aluminium added to break CaO-SiO2 chain
 Experimental Set up & methodology

• Defect characterization using SEM & EDS

• Characterization of mould powder samples

using XRF and hot stage microscope
 Experimental Set up & methodology

SEM Analysis

Al2O3 – 53%, FeO -16.5%, SiO2%- Al2O3 – 33%, Na2O -4%, SiO2-25 %,K2O-9%,
10,CaO-9%, C – 9% ,MgO – 2% C – 8% ,FeO – 35%

Preliminary Studies Origin in Mould powder

 Experimental Set up & methodology
Mould Powder characterization
Chemical Composition (%)
SiO2 CaO Al2O3 Fe2O3 Na2O C LOI
A 35.27 8.27 14.20 3.01 5.04 19.17 27.55
B 39.75 8.54 11.52 2.43 3.24 19.34 27.78
Mould Powder A Mould Powder B

Sintering Temp 800 0C 800 0C

Deformation Temperature
1175 0C 1165 0C
(softening Temp)
Spherical temperature 1185 0C 1160 0C
Hemispherical Temperature
1202 0C 1185 0C
(melting temperature)
Flow Temperature 1308 0C 1318 0C
Viscosity 76 poise 291 poise

However UT rejections continued

 Experimental Set up & methodology
Further SEM & EDS studies

Samples were sectioned at defect location, ground

and polished until the defect was exposed

X2 X2 X2
 Experimental Set up & methodology
SEM Analysis revealed High Alumina inclusions

Al2O3 – 77%, FeO -27%

Al2O3 – 66%, Fe2O3 -27%

 Experimental Set up & methodology

Review of De-oxidation Practice

Ladle Analysis VAD

1. Coke (~ 200Kg) C ~ 0.17 Trimm. Addn.
2. Al (~ 220 Kg) Si ~ 0.15 Coke
3. SiMn-FeSi Mn~ 0.55 Al
4. Lime

Average heat size : 112 T

 galaxite

2 %Mn %Si %Al Log[%Al]

Log[(% Mn)/(%Si)]

0.80 0.20 0.02 -1.7

alumina

1 1650˚C
1550˚C
Solid alumina
liquid alumino silicate
0

mullite
-4.0 -3.5 -3.0
log[% Al]
Equilibrium relations for deoxidation of liquid steel with Al-Si-Mn for %Si+%Mn=1; after
T.Fujisawa and H.Sakao
 Experimental Set up & methodology
Review of De-oxidation Practice
• Low Al recovery

• Ultra clean steel with very low sulphides( S restricted to

<0.005% in steel) 0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005

%S
0.004
0.003

• Very high UT rejections

0.002
0.001
0
15 17 19 21 23 25
% Al2O3 in slag
 Experimental Set up & methodology
Review of De-oxidation Practice
Recovery of Ferroalloys
% Additions,Kg Recovery %
Heat No C Mn Si Al FeSi SiMn Coke Al Si Mn Al C
14108930 0.6 0.82 0.22 0.03 253 1620 720 105 62 100 34 98
15106901 0.61 0.73 0.23 0.11 120 1621 730 312 83 89 42 99
15206646 0.61 0.74 0.25 0.02 212 1450 764 419 81 100 5 94
15306603 0.62 0.75 0.22 0.02 162 1570 740 289 74 94 6 99
15206791 0.59 0.72 0.2 0.03 1569 739 324 100 90 10 94
15206742 0.51 0.69 0.23 0.03 200 1509 652 307 74 90 12 92
15206728 0.5 0.74 0.29 0.02 150 1577 635 280 100 92 8 93
14304085 0.6 0.72 0.19 0.01 110 1443 728 258 76 98 5 97
15200504 0.49 0.71 0.19 0.01 119 1390 637 390 77 100 4 91
14208800 0.59 0.76 0.22 0.02 302 1499 744 100 60 100 24 94
14209027 0.58 0.75 0.23 0.02 299 1619 727 100 60 91 24 94
14304749 0.61 0.77 0.24 0.02 365 1549 720 126 58 98 15 100
14108930 0.6 0.82 0.22 0.03 253 1610 710 105 62 100 34 100
15107278 0.58 0.74 0.23 0.02 157 1460 760 239 83 100 11 90
15307942 0.485 0.74 0.23 0.01 207 1586 575 130 71 92 9 100
15200468 0.51 0.73 0.16 0.02 227 1550 617 80 48 93 32 98
73 95 17 96
•High recovery of Si,Mn & C and Low Al recovery
 Experimental Set up & methodology
Review of Deoxidation Practice

De-oxidation Practice Modified

Ladle Analysis VAD
1. Coke (~ 500Kg) C ~ 0.40 Trimmings:
2. SiMn-FeSi Si ~ 0.15 Coke
3. Al(~ 80 Kg) Mn~ 0.55 Al
4. Lime

Addition of Aluminium after coke build up and arcing

RESULTS
 Results
• S in steel increased to from 0.005 to 0.020% in steel

• Higher Al recovery

• Drastic reduction in UT rejections to < 1%

• % Al in steel ~ 0.010-0.015

• Grain size of ASTM 6-8 achieved in the wheels after

heat treatment

• Fracture Toughness R/19 : 85 MPA√m,R/34: 65MPA√m

CONCLUSIONS
 Conclusions
• Aluminium to be added after coke build up and
arcing to avoid macro alumina clusters

• Very low ‘S’ levels were achieved with higher Al

addition. With modified practice ‘S’ was still well
within norms

• Residual Al in steel 0.01-0.015 % max. is sufficient to

produce grain refined and efficiently deoxidised steel

• This deoxidation practice resulted in casting Al-killed

grades without nozzle clogging issues
 Summary
• High ultrasonic rejection was an area of concern and
investigated in depth to find out the genesis of defect
• Metallurgical investigation revealed Alumina inclusions,
generated during de-oxidation and re-oxidation, primarily
responsible for ultrasonic defect.
• Bottom pouring compound with higher viscosity not
suitable for inclusion absorption
• Reduction in Quantity of Al and change in sequence of
addition, restricted generation of inclusion
• 0.01 -0.015 % in steel sufficient to achieve grain size of
ASTM 6-8 in wheels
THANK YOU
 Micro-structure of Wheel

Fine pearlite with ferrite X 100

 CaO SiO2 Al2O3 MgO FeO MnO Basicity

Type I 51 14 16 11 3 0.3 4

Type II 2
48 25 11 8 3 5
Type III 50 31 3 11 2 3 1.6
Indigenous precipitation occurs on exogenous nuclei during all the different
stages of the steelmaking process.
Many NMIs continuously change their composition in the steel bath and even
in the solid steel, until the moment when the diffusion rate is negligible
Indigenous inclusions
• Precipitation as a result of reactions taking place in solidifying steel
• Induced by additions to steel or simply by changes in solubility during
cooling of steel
• Mostly oxides and sulphides

Exogenous inclusions
• Mechanical incorporation of slags ,refractories ,mould powder etc with
which steel comes in contact
• Large size,sporadic occurrence, preferred location in casting,irregular
shape
• Complex morphology
 Absorbing fluxes
High basicity
Moderate C contents
Low alumina
High alkali
Low viscosity
Study of 3 different deoxidation
practices
Ladle Analysis VAD
Type I 1. Coke (~ 200Kg) C ~ 0.17 Trimm. Addn.
2. Al (~ 220 Kg) Si ~ 0.15 Coke
3. SiMn-FeSi Mn~ 0.55 Al
4. Lime Purging ~100 lpm
Type II 1. Coke (~ 500Kg) C ~ 0.40 Trimm. Addn.
2. SiMn-FeSi Si ~ 0.15 Coke
3. Al(~ 80 Kg) Mn~ 0.55 Al
4. Lime Purging~100 lpm
Type III 1. Coke (~ 350Kg) C ~ 0.15 Coke
2. SiMn-FeSi Si ~ 0.15 Al (~ 50 Kg)
3. Lime Mn~ 0.55 added after C
build up (0.5%)
Purging~75 lpm

Average heat size : 112 T

Ultrasonic Testing of Wheels
 Product Mix
Product Application

• CC Blooms Re-rolling into :

• CC Billets • TMT Bars, Wire Rod
• Rolled Blooms • Structurals for Infrastructure,
Construction & TLT Tower
segment
• Springs for Auto Sector, Forgings
TMT Bars Construction & Infrastructure

Medium Structurals Construction, Fabrication, Tower

Finished (Angles, Channels & Segment (Power & Telecom),
Joists, Narrow/Wide Wagon Building
Parallel Beam)
Wheel & Axle Railway Locomotives, Coaches,
Wagons

3636
 Process Flow Diagram for Wheels
Heat making at SMS
(BOF-VAD-Bottom pouring)
Hot Stamping in 300 T Press
(Cast No, Year & DSP marking)
Wheel Ingots to WAP
Heat Treatment
(Heating, Rim Spraying & Tempering)
Inspection of Ingot Surface

Sample selection by RITES.

Block Cutting Residual stress test & falling weight test
at Band Saw & Circular Saw Machines followed by testing as per specification

Machining in CNC machines

Block Heating (1st ,2nd / 3rd Operation)
in Re-Heating Furnace – ‘A’
Cold stamping
Wheel Forging in 63/12 MN Press in Bradma stamping machine
(Upsetting, Forming & Punching)
Online Non-Destructive Testing by R&C
Lab in presence of RITES
Reheating of Wheel Blanks
in Furnace – ‘B’ • Magnetic Particle Testing
• Ultrasonic Testing
Rolling in Wheel Mill • Hardness Testing
(Rim/Web/Tread Rolling)
Dimensional checking & inspection by
Web formation R&C Lab followed by RITES
In 20 MN Dishing Press
Despatch 37
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR MANUFACTURING OF WHEELS
STEEL MAKING INSPECTION CUTTING INTO
OF INGOTS BLOCKS

STACKING

COLD STAMPING NON DESTRUCTIVE INSPECTION

TESTING (SAIL)
HEATING OF BLOCKS

MACHINING
FORGING &
INSPECTION ROLLING
DESPATCH
(RITES)
DESTRUCTIVE
TESTINGS DISHING

RESIDUAL STRESS SAMPLE HEAT STAMPING

TEST SELECTION TREATMENT