Weld Repair of Manganese Frogs Final

Weld Repair of Manganese Frogs for Enhanced
U.S. Department of
Transportation Performance
Federal Railroad
Administration
Office of Research,
Development,
and Technology
Washington, DC 20590
DOT/FRA/ORD-17/01 Final Report

January 2017
NOTICE
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the
Department of Transportation in the interest of information
exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for
its contents or use thereof. Any opinions, findings and
conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material do not
necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States
Government, nor does mention of trade names, commercial
products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States
Government. The United States Government assumes no liability
for the content or use of the material contained in this document.
NOTICE
The United States Government does not endorse products or
manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this
report.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
January 2017 Final
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Weld Repair of Manganese Frogs for Enhanced Performance
Contract No.
6. AUTHOR(S) DTFR53-13-C-00037
Marc Alan Purslow
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
EWI REPORT NUMBER
1250 Arthur E. Adams Drive 53744GTH
Columbus, OH 43221
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
U.S. Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Federal Railroad Administration
DOT/FRA/ORD-17/01
Office of Railroad Policy and Development
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20590
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
COR: Cameron D. Stuart
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
This document is available to the public through the FRA Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
When special trackwork contact surfaces (such as manganese-steel turnout frogs) become worn and damaged, they can be repaired
to extend their lifetime, but current repair methods typically cannot return these surfaces to their original durability. Since worn or
damaged frogs in freight and shared corridors have a detrimental effect on ride quality and increase life cycle costs, improved
repair processes can extend the service life of frogs and improve the safety and efficiency of rail operations. In this project, EWI
developed a new flux-cored arc welding (FCAW) procedure to repair manganese frogs. When EWI tested a repaired frog in
simulated revenue service conditions at the Transportation Technology Center, the test results show a significant improvement in
the durability of the repair as compared to traditional repair methods. Future work plans include revenue service trials, as well as
refinements to weld procedures and materials.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
Reciprocating Wire Feed Radiographic Testing 124

Constant Voltage Shielded Metal Arc Welding 16. PRICE CODE
Flux-Cored Arc Welding Ultimate Tensile Strength
Heat-Affected Zone Yield Strength
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
SAR
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18
298-102
i
METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS
ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH
LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)
1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in)
1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in)
1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft)
1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd)
1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)
AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

2 2
1 square inch (sq in, in ) = 6.5 square centimeters (cm ) 1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2)
2 2
1 square foot (sq ft, ft ) = 0.09 square meter (m ) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2)
2 2
1 square yard (sq yd, yd ) = 0.8 square meter (m ) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2)
1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres
2
1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m )
MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)

1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz)
1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb)
1 short ton = 2,000 pounds = 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) = 1,000 kilograms (kg)
(lb) = 1.1 short tons
VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)
1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt)
1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt)
1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal)
1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)
1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)
1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)
1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3)
3 3
1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd ) = 0.76 cubic meter (m ) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)
TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

[(x-32)(5/9)] °F = y °C [(9/5) y + 32] °C = x °F
QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5
Inches
Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION

°F -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°
°C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°
For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and
Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98
ii
Contents
Illustrations.................................................................................................................................... v
Tables .......................................................................................................................................... viii
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Overall Approach ............................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Scope ................................................................................................................................ 7
2. Task 1 - Process Baseline Study ......................................................................................... 10
2.1 Objectives and Approach ............................................................................................... 10
2.2 Baseline Welding ........................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Evaluation of Baseline Welds ........................................................................................ 10
2.4 Interpass Temperature Trials ......................................................................................... 16
3. Task 2 - Automated Repair of Manganese Frogs Using FCAW ..................................... 18
3.1 Automated FCAW Welding Trials ................................................................................ 18
3.2 Reciprocating Wire Feed (RWF) FCAW Trials ............................................................ 24
3.3 Baseline Testing and Automated FCAW Development Overview ............................... 27
3.4 Field Repair Evaluation ................................................................................................. 29
3.5 Weld Repair of Partial Frog ........................................................................................... 31
3.6 Evaluation of Partial Frog Weld Repair......................................................................... 32
3.7 Repair of Full-Length Frogs for TTCI Testing .............................................................. 33
4. Track and Laboratory Testing Results ............................................................................... 47
4.1 Track Testing Summary................................................................................................. 52
4.2 EWI Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................ 53
5. Automation Concept ............................................................................................................. 66
5.1 Automated Repair System Concept ............................................................................... 66
5.2 Repair Approach Concept .............................................................................................. 68
6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 69
7. References .............................................................................................................................. 70
Appendix. TTCI Report ............................................................................................................ 71
Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................. 117
iii
Illustrations
Figure 1: Breakout of Weld Repair ................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2: Breakout on Wing .......................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Work Breakdown Structure ............................................................................................ 9
Figure 4: #20 Point Mock-up ....................................................................................................... 11
Figure 5: Top View of #20 Point Mock-up Geometry ................................................................ 11
Figure 6: Side View of #20 Point Mock-up Geometry ................................................................ 11
Figure 7: Baseline SMAW Cross Section.................................................................................... 12
Figure 8: Baseline FCAW Cross Section..................................................................................... 13
Figure 9: Baseline SMAW Hardness Map................................................................................... 13
Figure 10: Baseline FCAW Hardness Map ................................................................................. 14
Figure 11: Tested Sub-sized Tensile Samples ............................................................................. 14
Figure 12: Tensile Specimen Locations ....................................................................................... 15
Figure 13: Industry-Recommended Weld Sequence ................................................................... 16
Figure 14: Alternate Weld Sequence 2 ........................................................................................ 17
Figure 15: Alternate Weld Sequence 3 ........................................................................................ 17
Figure 16: Illustration of Push and Drag Travel Angles .............................................................. 18
Figure 17: Weld Sequence Used for Automated Build-up Without Interpass Cleaning ............. 19
Figure 18: Cross Section of Automated FCAW Build-up Without Interpass Cleaning .............. 20
Figure 19: Hardness Map of Automated FCAW Build-up Without Interpass Cleaning ............. 20
Figure 20: Corner Bead Welding ................................................................................................. 21
Figure 21: Center Bead Welding ................................................................................................. 21
Figure 22: Cross Section of Automated FCAW Build-up with Interpass Cleaning and 15-Degree
Drag Angle ............................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 23: Hardness Map of Automated FCAW Build-up .......................................................... 24
Figure 24: Cross Section of Automated RWF FCAW Build-up ................................................. 26
Figure 25: Hardness Map of Automated RWF FCAW Build-up ................................................ 26
Figure 26: Field-Repaired Frog ................................................................................................... 29
Figure 27: Breakout on Field-Repaired Frog ............................................................................... 30
Figure 28: Cross Section of Repaired Area Showing Use of Stainless Steel in First Two Layers
............................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 29: RT of Repaired Area Showing Pores at the Edges Due to Contamination from Carbon
Blocks ................................................................................................................................... 31
v
Figure 30: Frog After Removal of Damaged Material with Carbon Arc Gouging and Grinding 31
Figure 31: Cross Section of Repair-welded Point........................................................................ 32
Figure 32: Cross Section of Repair-welded Wing ....................................................................... 32
Figure 33: Frog #1 Marked for Carbon Arc Gouging.................................................................. 33
Figure 34: Frog #2 Marked for Carbon Arc Gouging.................................................................. 34
Figure 35: Material Removal Illustration .................................................................................... 34
Figure 36: Carbon Arc Gouging Process ..................................................................................... 35
Figure 37: Complete Carbon Arc Gouging .................................................................................. 35
Figure 38: Frog #1 After Grinding............................................................................................... 36
Figure 39: Frog #1 After Grinding............................................................................................... 36
Figure 40: Frog #1 Wing Repair Welding Sequence ................................................................... 38
Figure 41: Frog #1 After Wing Repair ........................................................................................ 38
Figure 42: Frog #1 After Additional “Taper” Weld Build-up ..................................................... 39
Figure 43: Base Material Cracking in Frog #1 at Interface with “Transition” Build-up ............. 40
Figure 44: Removal of Cracks from Frog #1 to Allow Repair Welding ..................................... 40
Figure 45: Filling of Cracks in Frog #1 ....................................................................................... 41
Figure 46: Frog #1 Crack-fill Welds Ground Smooth ................................................................. 41
Figure 47: Weld Build-up to Complete Frog #1 Crack Repair .................................................... 42
Figure 48: Illustration of Frog #1 Point Repair Sequence ........................................................... 43
Figure 49: Crack Found in Point of Frog #1 ................................................................................ 43
Figure 50: Frog #2 Wing Repair Welding Sequence ................................................................... 44
Figure 51: Frog #2 After Wing Repair ........................................................................................ 44
Figure 52: Preparation of Frog #2 Transition Area ..................................................................... 45
Figure 53: Layer 1 Welding of Frog #2 Transition Area ............................................................. 45
Figure 54: Frog #2 Repair Sequence ........................................................................................... 46
Figure 55: Point Running Surface Wear Along Length of Point ................................................. 48
Figure 56: Running Surface Wear 32 inches Past Frog Point ..................................................... 48
Figure 57: Point Running Surface Wear 32 inches from Point at 0 and 100 MGT ..................... 49
Figure 58: Point Hardness ............................................................................................................ 49
Figure 59: Running Surface Wear Along Length of Wing .......................................................... 50
Figure 60: Wing Running Surface Wear 8 inches Past Frog Point.............................................. 50
Figure 61: Wing Running Surface Wear 8 inches from Point at 0 and 100 MGT ...................... 51
Figure 62: Wing Hardness ........................................................................................................... 51
vi
Figure 63: Combined Wing and Point Running Surface Wear.................................................... 52
Figure 64: Point Running Surface Spalls ..................................................................................... 52
Figure 65: Ultrasonic Testing Scan Sample................................................................................. 53
Figure 66: Locations from which RT Specimens were Removed ............................................... 54
Figure 67: RT Image of Field-Repaired Sample.......................................................................... 54
Figure 68: RT Image of Wing Repaired with EWI’s Automated FCAW Repair Technique ...... 55
Figure 69: AMS Frog Casting Base Material Showing Multiple Voids ...................................... 55
Figure 70: Weld Metal Showing Slag Inclusion .......................................................................... 56
Figure 71: Horizontal Cracks Likely Due to Shear Loading (1) ................................................... 56
Figure 72: Horizontal Cracks Likely Due to Shear Loading (2) ................................................... 57
Figure 73: Crack in Base Material Adjacent to Weld Fusion Line.............................................. 57
Figure 74: Slag Inclusion and Existing Base Material Crack ...................................................... 58
Figure 75: Surface and Sub-surface Cracking in Point ................................................................ 58
Figure 76: Close-up of Sub-surface Cracking in Point ................................................................ 59
Figure 77: Surface Spalling 32 inches from Point ....................................................................... 59
Figure 78: Cracking Located on Corner of Point......................................................................... 60
Figure 79: Cross-section Taken 9.5 inches from Point ................................................................ 60
Figure 80: Cross-section Taken 32 inches from Point ................................................................. 61
Figure 81: Cross-section Taken 42 inches from Point ................................................................. 61
Figure 82: Cross-section Taken 8 inches from Wing .................................................................. 62
Figure 83: Cross-section Taken 19 inches from Wing ................................................................ 62
Figure 84: Point Hardness Map 9.5 inches from Point ................................................................ 63
Figure 85: Wing Hardness Map 8 inches from Point .................................................................. 63
Figure 86: Automated FCAW Repair Microstructure – Top Layer ............................................ 64
Figure 87: Automated FCAW Repair Microstructure – Second Layer ....................................... 65
Figure 88: Automation Concept with Robot Cart Retracted ....................................................... 66
Figure 89: Automation Concept Showing Deployed Robot Cart (View 1) ................................. 66
Figure 90: Automation Concept Showing Deployed Robot Cart (View 2) ................................. 67
Figure 91: Close-up View of Robot Cart ..................................................................................... 67
Figure 92: Top View of Automation Concept ............................................................................. 68
vii
Tables
Table 1: Average Million Gross Tons (MGTs) until Repair is Required ...................................... 3
Table 2: Average MGTs until Repair is Required – Standard vs. High-Integrity Frogs ............... 3
Table 3: Grinding Recommendations to Avoid Breakout and Minimize Repair .......................... 5
Table 4: Process Comparison Table .............................................................................................. 7
Table 5: Major Task Milestones .................................................................................................... 8
Table 6: Baseline Welding Parameters and Productivity Data .................................................... 12
Table 7: Baseline SMAW Tensile Test Results........................................................................... 15
Table 8: Summary of Tensile Test Data ...................................................................................... 16
Table 9: Interpass Cleaning Investigation Welding Parameters .................................................. 19
Table 10: Automated FCAW Corner Bead Parameter ................................................................ 22
Table 11: Automated FCAW Center Bead Parameter ................................................................. 22
Table 12: Tensile Test Results from Automated FCAW Build-up with Interpass Cleaning
and 15-Degree Drag Angle ......................................................................................... 24
Table 13: Low Heat-input Automated RWF FCAW Parameters ................................................ 25
Table 14: High Deposition-rate Automated RWF FCAW Parameters ........................................ 25
Table 15: Tensile Test Results from Automated RWF FCAW Build-up .................................... 27
Table 16: Overview of Tensile Testing Results for All Build-ups from Task 1 and Task 2 ....... 27
Table 17: Process Comparison Summary .................................................................................... 28
Table 18: Automated FCAW Corner Bead Parameter ................................................................ 28
Table 19: Comparison of All Tensile Testing Results ................................................................. 33
Table 20: Charpy V-notch Toughness Properties ........................................................................ 33
Table 21: Test Frog Welding Parameters .................................................................................... 37
Table 22: TTCI Frog Maintenance Record .................................................................................. 47
Table 23: RT Inspection Summary .............................................................................................. 54
Table 24: Chemical Compositions of Automated FCAW Repaired Weld .................................. 64
viii
Executive Summary
Special trackwork components, including austenitic manganese steel (AMS) turnout frogs, are
safety-critical elements in railroad track. The turnout frogs’ unique construction and functional
requirements subject them to high impact forces and the wear rate of these components is much
higher than normal running rail surfaces. Worn or damaged frogs in freight and shared corridors can
have a detrimental effect on ride quality and increase life cycle costs. Current repair methods for
railroad switch frogs effectively restore the running profile of the rail, but the repaired frogs do not
have the same service life as new components. Improved repair processes that can extend the
service life of frogs will improve the safety and efficiency of rail operations.
Welding AMS is challenging because it requires rapid cooling rates, low heat inputs, and minimal
heating of the base material to retain the mechanical properties that cause high toughness and wear
resistance. Manual or semi-automatic repair of AMS frogs is challenging due to an inherent
conflict between stringent limits on interpass temperature, and the level of productivity that is
required to minimize track downtime. Track time is often so limited that repairs cannot be properly
completed within the time allotted. In these cases, only a portion of the frog can be repaired, and
the resultant height mismatch leads to further operational damage before the repair can be
completed. The common repair processes are shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) and semi-
automatic self-shielded flux-cored arc welding (FCAW), which is manually applied. Special
techniques are used to limit heat build-up.
In this project, EWI developed a new flux-cored arc welding (FCAW) procedure that can be used to
repair manganese frogs. The goal was to determine if automating FCAW process variations can
increase productivity, improve weld quality, and increase the durability of repairs.
Commonly, productivity and/or reduced heat input during welding is improved by mechanizing or
automating the welding process using a solid electrode. Since a solid electrode is not commercially
available for welding AMS components, a self-shielded FCAW electrode was used for this project.
A shielding gas blend of 75 percent Argon/ 25 percent CO2 was added to improve process stability.
Welding trials were conducted in constant voltage (CV) mode with a conventional power supply
and a specialized system, capable of welding in short-circuit mode with reciprocating wire feed,
was added to further reduce heat input, improve process stability, and minimize spatter.
Implementation of automation reduced the calculated heat input by up to 64 percent compared to

baseline manual SMAW and semi-automatic FCAW techniques. This reduction minimized heating
of these components during welding, minimized downtime while components were allowed to cool,
and minimized local temperature spikes adjacent to the deposited weld bead. Efficiency increased
significantly. The time to complete a weld layer was reduced by 30 percent compared to semi-
automatic FCAW, and over 75 percent compared to SMAW. The volume of material deposited per
unit time increased by 200 to 270 percent over SMAW, and was equal to that of semi-automatic
FCAW.
1
A repaired frog was tested by EWI in simulated revenue service conditions at the US Department of
Transportation (DOT) Transportation Technology Center (TTC) from Spring 2014 through Fall
2014, and the test results showed a significant improvement in the durability of the repair compared
to traditional repair methods. The test frog was subjected to over 118 Million Gross Tons (MGTs)
of service, and was in serviceable condition at the end of the test. The service life of the test frog
was 240 percent longer than the average life of repaired frogs, and 107 percent longer than the
service life of new frogs. Subsequent laboratory testing confirmed that the automated technique
yields a significant increase in weld quality compared to field-repaired samples and mock baseline
samples. Future work plans are to include revenue service trials as well as weld procedure and
material refinements.
2
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Cast austenitic manganese steel (AMS) turnout frogs and crossing diamonds are among the shortest-
lived track segments. A study reported that approximately 6,800 frogs are replaced yearly at a cost
of approximately $120 million(1). It also stated that another $120 million is spent on frog
maintenance each year. According to this study, the average life of these cast manganese
components drops sharply after the first repair:
Table 1: Average Million Gross Tons (MGTs) before Repair(1)
New 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Frog Type
Component Repair Repair Repair Repair
Manganese Turnout 57 37 33 37 32
Manganese Diamond 47 33 30 23 35
Rail-constructed Turnout 58 55 52 52 52
Another study reviewed maintenance records from the former Chicago & North Western Powder
River Subdivision between Horse Creek, Nebraska, and Shawnee Junction, Wyoming, to evaluate
the service lives of standard #20 AMS frogs and “high-integrity” AMS frogs(2). This line carried
almost exclusively 100- and 110-ton unit coal trains. High-integrity frog castings are required to
meet more stringent standards of solidity, which is accomplished with improved casting techniques
(such as improved mold designs with additional risers) and by using better sand binders. The results
of this study are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Average MGTs until Repair is Required – Standard vs. High-Integrity Frogs
New 1st Subsequent

Frog Type
Component Repair Repairs
Standard Manganese Turnout 50 20 11
High-integrity Manganese Turnout 101 39 21
Both studies show that the majority of required repairs are caused by “breakouts” or cracks.
Breakouts occur when the frog casting has not been sufficiently work-hardened and plastically
deforms during the beginning of its service life. The damaged material often acts as the initiation
point for cracks, and can lead to the break off of large areas of material during wheel contact.
Breakouts occur in new frogs as well as weld-repaired frogs; however, the reduced initial hardness
of repaired frogs results in more plastic deformation, making breakouts more prevalent. Examples
of breakouts are provided in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
3
Figure 1: Breakout of Weld Repair
Figure 2: Breakout on Wing
Table 3 shows the composite frog-grinding recommendations from a survey of railroad maintenance
policies. Due to track time limits, completing these procedures as recommended is challenging.
4
Table 3: Grinding Recommendations to Avoid Breakout and Minimize Repair
Steady-state
Frog Type 1st Grinding 2nd Grinding 3rd Grinding
Interval
New AMS Frog 5 MGT 20 MGT ── 20 MGT
Repaired AMS Frog 1 Day 1 week 1 month 20 MGT
AMS has a high work-hardening capacity and resistance to wear, making it an ideal material for
frogs. Though welding AMS is challenging due to temperature restrictions, it has advantageous
properties when quickly cooled from welding temperatures (unlike high-carbon rail steel). Proper
welding allows the wear surfaces to transform into a hard, tough structure through deformation
twinning, particle precipitation, and phase change. American Welding Society (AWS) specification
D15.2 states that the temperature measured 1 in (25 mm) from welding shall not exceed 500ºF
(260ºC)(3). Exceeding this temperature causes significant degradation of material properties,
particularly the toughness and cracking resistance of hardened layers.
Repair processes for railroad manganese frogs commonly use shielded metal arc welding (SMAW)
and self-shielded flux-cored arc welding (FCAW):
• SMAW employs an electrical arc between a consumable coated electrode and the base
material. The molten pool is shielded by the gases created when the arc heat decomposes
the electrode coating and by the slag covering that forms.
• Self-shielded FCAW uses an electrical arc between a continuously-fed cored consumable
electrode and the base material. Decomposition of the electrode core produces gases and a
coating to shield the weld pool.
In both processes, the slag covering must be removed via chipping or brushing to avoid slag
inclusions, which negatively affect weld quality. To reduce heat build-up, both SMAW and FCAW
processes call for special techniques to limit interpass temperature of AMS components, but this
limits productivity.
To increase productivity and/or reduce heat input, the welding process can be mechanized or
automated by using a solid electrode process known as gas metal arc welding (GMAW). GMAW is
similar to FCAW because it uses an electrical arc between a continuously fed consumable electrode
and the base material. Shielding gas is fed through a nozzle to shield the weld pool, and the solid
electrode results in a more stable arc which can be operated in spray transition mode. This allows
the use of higher currents, deposition rates and travel speeds compared to cored electrodes.
Minimal interpass cleaning is required because slag coverings do not form. Solid electrodes
depend on shielding gas for weld pool protection in drafty or windy environments, thus using
GMAW can be problematic. This makes FCAW a common process of choice for outdoor work.
An FCAW electrode was used in all welding trials, since a solid electrode is not commercially
available for welding AMS components. A 75 percent Argon/25 percent CO2 shielding gas blend
was added to improve process stability and reduce welding fumes. Welding trials were conducted
in constant voltage (CV) mode with a conventional power supply and with a specialized power
supply capable of welding in short circuiting mode with reciprocating wire feed to further reduce
heat input, improve process stability, and minimize spatter.
5
1.2 Objectives
In this project, which took place from Spring 2014 through Fall 2014, AMS frogs were repaired
with arc welding techniques or automated FCAW solutions and the capabilities of both solutions
were compared against each other. Automated processes provide quality control and increase the
deposition rate of the repair process, which results in a more durable repair. Automation also
increases overall productivity, and may reduce the track time required to complete repair of a worn
or damaged frog.
1.3 Overall Approach

EWI produced baseline welding samples using current industry repair techniques on “mock-ups”
created to model the point of a #20 frog. EWI deposited multi-layer weld build-ups on these mock-
ups using manual SMAW and semi-automatic FCAW; the completed build-ups were evaluated with
radiographic testing, mechanical testing, and by examining cross sections.
EWI then automated the FCAW process and the reciprocating wire feed (RWF) FCAW process,
which is a variation of the FCAW process where the wire motion is synchronized with a current
waveform. EWI developed weld parameters using both FCAW process variations. These efforts
were designed to improve weld quality and productivity while keeping the temperature of the base
material below 500°F at a distance of 1 in from the weld. Welds were evaluated by EWI with
radiographic testing (RT), tensile testing, and hardness mapping. Table 4 is a process comparison
table summarizing baseline welding processes as well as both automated FCAW variations.
6
Table 4: Process Comparison Table
Process Description Advantages Disadvantages
- Uses "stick" electrodes - Inexpensive equipment - High skill level required
- Manually applied - Welder familiarity - High fume levels
- Decomposition of electrode coating - Works well in drafty environments - Electrodes must be changed often,
SMAW producing gasses and slag to shield the resulting in many starts/stops
weld puddle - Low deposition rate, resulting in low
productivity
- Continuously fed cored electrode - Increased deposition rate compared to - Li
Highi fume
d i ibili
levels f ldi ddl
- Welding torch is manually manipulated SMAW - Limited visibility of welding puddle
Semi- - Decomposition of electrode coating - Less skill required than SMAW - Equipment is more complex and
automatic producing gasses and slag to shield the - Works well in drafty environments expensive than SMAW
FCAW weld puddle - Fewer starts/stops than SMAW
- Lower heat input than SMAW
- Continuously fed cored electrode - Highest deposition rate - Welding equipment is more complex/
- Torch manipulation is automated - Less skill required than SMAW and SA FCAW expensive than SMAW
- Decomposition of electrode coating - Works well in drafty environments - Less flexibility than manual/semi-
producing gasses and slag to shield the - Fewer starts/stops than SMAW automatic processes (programming is
Automated weld puddle - Improved welding consistency required)
FCAW - In this project EWI used shielding gas to - The use of shielding gas reduces fume
improve arc stability and reduce welding levels and improved visibility
fume - Lower heat input than SA FCAW
- Continuously fed cored electrode - Less skill required than SMAW and SA FCAW - Welding equipment is more complex
- Torch manipulation is automated - Works well in drafty environments and expensive than SMAW and FCAW
- Electrode feed is synchronized with a - Fewer starts/stops than SMAW - Less flexibility than manual/semi-
specialized current waveform - Improved welding consistency automatic processes (programming is
- Minimal spatter - The use of shielding gas reduces fume required)
- Decomposition of electrode coating levels and improved visibility - Slightly lower deposition rate than
RWF FCAW
producing gasses and slag to shield the - Minimal spatter is produced automated FCAW
weld puddle - Lowest heat input level
- In this project EWI used shielding gas to
improve arc stability and reduce welding
fume
EWI contracted with the Transportation Technology Center, Inc., (TTCI) to support the project with
worn frogs for testing and to provide testing services at its center, TTC. EWI selected automated
FCAW to repair a full-sized frog for testing, and developed the welding sequence on a partial frog
section provided by TTCI. The frog was prepared in a manner representative of repairs in the field.
EWI duplicated this approach on two full-length frogs and shipped them to TTCI.
TTCI performed the required finish grinding. A crack was found in the base material of the point of
Frog #1. Although EWI developed a procedure capable of successfully repairing the crack, Frog #1
was not repaired due to budget and scheduling limitations. Frog #2 was ground to shape and placed
in TTCI’s test track for evaluation. Maintenance grinding was performed when necessary, and the
frog was monitored via periodic hardness and profile measurements. Following the tests at TTCI,
the frog was returned to EWI for scientific evaluation.
1.4 Scope
Major task milestones are listed in Table 5. All work was performed by EWI and TTCI, in
accordance with the work breakdown structure in Figure 3.
7
Table 5: Major Task Milestones
8
Figure 3: Work Breakdown Structure
9
2. Task 1 - Process Baseline Study
2.1 Objectives and Approach

In Task 1, EWI procured the required base materials and consumables to conduct welding trials,
and created baseline samples with current welding processes and techniques (SMAW and semi-
automatic FCAW). EWI searched the literature for an approach to creating baseline samples that
represented welding completed in the field.(3-8) Based on the recommendations of AWS D15.2,
railroad-supplied maintenance handbooks, and select articles, EWI conducted welding in short-
circuiting transfer mode using a 35 to 50° (push) travel angle. Bead width and length were limited
to 5/8 and 5.0 in, respectively.
EWI used bead sequencing to control the distribution of heat within the frog. “Skipping”
sequences can effectively spread the heat from welding and prevent a relatively small area from
becoming overheated. Bead sequencing also ensures adequate weld fusion by ensuring that
multiple arc starts are not located adjacent to one another. This is important, as lack-of-fusion
defects are most common at the start of a weld, where the welding arc has not sufficiently
preheated the base material. Industry-recommended techniques included starting at the point
(narrow section) and welding toward the heel (broad section), staggering weld craters, and
avoiding side-by-side beads when possible. EWI filled weld craters by reversing the welding
direction for approximately 0.5 in and welding back into the bead. All layers aside from the first
and last were peened with a hammer to alleviate residual stresses and prevent cracking defects
from forming. The maximum allowed interpass temperature was 500°F measured 1 in from the
weld.
EWI cut mock-ups out of 2-in thick AMS plate to represent the geometry of a #20 frog point and
welded them to a carbon-steel baseplate using 308 stainless steel electrodes (Figure 4 through
Figure 6). EWI deposited multi-layer build-ups on the mock-up points to simulate repair of a
worn frog point. A minimum height of 5/8 in was deposited to provide a sufficient amount of
weld metal for non-destructive and mechanical testing. EWI measured the surface temperature 1
in from the weld using a contact temperature probe immediately after the termination of the
welding arc to determine the maximum temperature reached by the adjacent base material during
welding.
2.2 Baseline Welding

Welding parameters and productivity data are summarized in Table 6. Baseline welds created
with SMAW and self-shielded FCAW were allowed to cool below 250°F between weld beads and
below 100°F between layers.
2.3 Evaluation of Baseline Welds

EWI compared the weld quality and resultant mechanical properties of baseline welds to the
automated FCAW and RWF FCAW welds to be produced in Task 2. RT, hardness mapping, and
all-weld-metal tensile testing were performed.
10

)LJXUH3RLQW0RFNXS

)LJXUH7RS9LHZRI3RLQW0RFNXS*HRPHWU\

)LJXUH6LGH9LHZRI3RLQW0RFNXS*HRPHWU\

Table 6: Baseline Welding Parameters and Productivity Data
Electrode Time per Thickness

Current Voltage Travel Heat Input Deposition
Process Diameter Layer per Layer
(A) (V) Speed (ipm) (kJ/in.) Rate (lbs/hr.)
(in.) (min.) (in.)
SMAW 5/32 180 24 4 to 6 45 to 65 3 20 0.045

FCAW 1/16 200 27 6 60 7 to 8 6.1 0.086
The cross section provided in Figure 7 shows two vertical cracks. RT of the completed baseline
manual FCAW mock build-up revealed scattered porosity, which can be seen in the cross-section
provided in Figure 8.
Figure 7: Baseline SMAW Cross Section
12

)LJXUH%DVHOLQH)&$:&URVV6HFWLRQ
7KHEDVHOLQH60$:KDUGQHVVPDSSURYLGHGLQ)LJXUHKDVDZHOGPHWDOKDUGQHVVUDQJHRI
WR%ULQHOOZKLOHWKHKDUGQHVVPDSRIWKH)&$:FURVVVHFWLRQSURYLGHGLQ)LJXUHVKRZV
ZHOGPHWDOKDUGQHVVRIWR%ULQHOO'DWDIURPERWKVDPSOHVLQGLFDWHWKDWWKHKHDWIURP
ZHOGLQJUHVXOWHGLQKDUGHQLQJZHOOEHORZWKHYLVLEOHKHDWDIIHFWHG]RQH +$= $:6'
VWDWHVWKDWIRUWKHJUDGHRI$06W\SLFDOO\XVHGIRUWUDFNZRUNKDUGQHVVFDQUDQJHIURPWR
%ULQHOOLQWKHDVFDVWFRQGLWLRQEXWFDQLQFUHDVHWRDPD[LPXPRI%ULQHOODIWHUWKHZRUN
KDUGHQLQJWKDWRFFXUVGXULQJQRUPDORSHUDWLRQ

)LJXUH%DVHOLQH60$:+DUGQHVV0DS

)LJXUH%DVHOLQH)&$:+DUGQHVV0DS
(:,XVHGDOOZHOGPHWDOWHQVLOHVSHFLPHQVWRGHWHUPLQH\LHOGVWUHQJWK <6 DQGXOWLPDWHWHQVLOH

VWUHQJWK 876 )LJXUH 6XEVL]HGVDPSOHVZHUHXVHGWRHQVXUHWKDWQREDVHPDWHULDOZDV
LQFOXGHGLQWKHUHGXFHGVHFWLRQRIWKHWHQVLOHZKLOHWKHQXPEHURIUHTXLUHGSDVVHVZDVOLPLWHG
7KHORFDWLRQVIURPZKLFKWHQVLOHVDPSOHVZHUHUHPRYHGIURPWKHEXLOGXSVDUHLOOXVWUDWHGLQ
)LJXUHDQGWKHUHVXOWVRIWHQVLOHWHVWLQJDUHSURYLGHGLQ7DEOH

)LJXUH7HVWHG6XEVL]HG7HQVLOH6DPSOHV

)LJXUH7HQVLOH6SHFLPHQ/RFDWLRQV

7DEOH%DVHOLQH60$:7HQVLOH7HVW5HVXOWV
Specimen Diameter Test Temperature Ultimate Strength 0.2% Yield Strength Elongation Area Reduction
Specimen I.D.
(mm) (in) (C) (F) (MPa) (ksi) (MPa) (ksi) (%) (%)
SAW-A 8.99 0.354 24 75.2 821.4 119.1 609.0 88.3 15.4 25.8
SAW-B 8.94 0.352 24 75.2 789.0 114.4 562.8 81.6 17.3 11.0
SAW-C 8.94 0.352 24 75.2 801.4 116.2 552.4 80.1 17.2 23.9
FCAW-A 8.94 0.352 24 75.2 618.6 89.7 501.4 72.7 13.0 35.4
FCAW-B 8.94 0.352 24 75.2 695.2 100.8 506.2 73.4 17.9 30.7
FCAW-C 8.94 0.352 24 75.2 671.7 97.4 520.7 75.5 12.9 18.4
$VXPPDU\RIWKLVGDWDLVSURYLGHGLQ7DEOHDORQJZLWKW\SLFDOWHQVLOHDQG<6UDQJHVSURYLGHG
LQ$:6':KLOHWKHXOWLPDWHVWUHQJWK 876 RIWKH60$:PRFNEXLOGXSZDVZLWKLQWKH
UDQJHIRUWKHJUDGHRI$06W\SLFDOO\XVHGIRUVSHFLDOWUDFNZRUNVSHFLILHGE\$:6'WKH
\LHOGVWUHQJWK <6 LVVLJQLILFDQWO\KLJKHU7KHDYHUDJH876RIWKH)&$:PRFNEXLOGXSLV
EHORZWKHUDQJHIRUWKHJUDGHRI$06WKDWLVW\SLFDOO\XVHGIRUWUDFNZRUNKRZHYHUWKH<6ZDV
DERYHWKHUDQJH7KHKLJKHUDYHUDJH<6RIERWKEDVHOLQHVDPSOHVPD\UHGXFHSODVWLFGHIRUPDWLRQ
6LQFHWKHPDMRULW\RI$06IURJUHSDLUVDUHGXHWRGDPDJHWKDWRFFXUVZKHQSODVWLFDOO\GHIRUPHG
PDWHULDOLVWRUQRIIWKLVKDVWKHSRWHQWLDOWRSRVLWLYHO\LPSDFWRYHUDOOGXUDELOLW\ZKLOHUHGXFLQJ
UHTXLUHGJULQGLQJ

7DEOH6XPPDU\RI7HQVLOH7HVW'DWD
)&$:
$:6' 60$:%DVHOLQH
0DWHULDO3URSHUW\ %DVHOLQH
5DQJH NVL $YHUDJH NVL
$YHUDJH NVL
<6
876
,QWHUSDVV7HPSHUDWXUH7ULDOV
(:,FRQGXFWHGWULDOVWRGHWHUPLQHKRZZHOGVHTXHQFHDQGEHDGOHQJWKDIIHFWHGWKHLQWHUSDVV
WHPSHUDWXUHRIPRFNXSVDPSOHV(:,NHSWDOORWKHUZHOGLQJYDULDEOHV FXUUHQWYROWDJHWUDYHO
VSHHGDQGWUDYHODQJOH FRQVWDQWDQGHYDOXDWHGWKUHHVHTXHQFHVXVLQJ60$:0RFNXSVZHUH
ZHOGHGZLWKPLQLPDOGHOD\EHWZHHQSDVVHVWRUHSUHVHQWDZRUVWFDVHVFHQDULRUHJDUGLQJ
RYHUKHDWLQJRIWKHEDVHPDWHULDO

7KHEDVHOLQHZHOGVHTXHQFHHPSOR\HGWKHVDPHZHOGLQJSDUDPHWHUVDQGJXLGHOLQHVXVHGLQ
EDVHOLQH60$:WULDOV(:,UHPRYHGVODJYLDZLUHEUXVKLQJDQGSHUIRUPHGSHHQLQJDIWHUHDFK
ZHOGSDVV6XEVHTXHQWZHOGSDVVHVZHUHWKHQGHSRVLWHGZLWKRXWGHOD\$VVKRZQE\WKHFRORU
FRGLQJLQ)LJXUHWKHWHPSHUDWXUHH[FHHGHG)LQVL[RIWKHHOHYHQGHSRVLWHGZHOGEHDGV
DQGLQRQHRIWKHVHEHDGVH[FHHGHG)
)LJXUH,QGXVWU\5HFRPPHQGHG:HOG6HTXHQFH

(:,HYDOXDWHGDVHFRQGZHOGVHTXHQFHZKLFKXVHGDQDOWHUQDWHLQWHUPLWWHQWZHOGLQJVHTXHQFHLQ
DQDWWHPSWWRDYRLGKHDWEXLOGXSKRZHYHUWKHWHPSHUDWXUHH[FHHGHG)LQIRXURIWKHILIWHHQ
GHSRVLWHGZHOGEHDGVDQGLQWKUHHRIWKHVHEHDGVH[FHHGHG) )LJXUH

)LJXUH$OWHUQDWH:HOG6HTXHQFH

$WKLUGZHOGVHTXHQFHXVHGORQJHUZHOGVDQGDGLDJRQDOSODFHPHQWSDWWHUQIRUWKHILUVWWKUHHZHOG
EHDGV )LJXUH 7KHWHPSHUDWXUHGLGQRWH[FHHG)LQDQ\RIWKHILYHEHDGVZKLFKUHYHDOV
WKHLPSDFWWKDWZHOGVHTXHQFLQJFDQKDYHRQKHDWEXLOGXS%DVHGRQWKHVHILQGLQJVWKHWHDP¶V
VXEVHTXHQW)&$:GHYHORSPHQWXVHGDZHOGLQJVHTXHQFHZLWKORQJFRQWLQXRXVEHDGVDWDKLJK
WUDYHOVSHHGWRGHFUHDVHKHDWLQSXWDQGPLQLPL]HKHDWEXLOGXSLQWKHFRPSRQHQW

)LJXUH$OWHUQDWH:HOG6HTXHQFH

7DVN$XWRPDWHG5HSDLURI0DQJDQHVH)URJV8VLQJ)&$:
$XWRPDWHG)&$::HOGLQJ7ULDOV
(:,GHYHORSHGDXWRPDWHG)&$:SDUDPHWHUVE\SHUIRUPLQJDVHULHVRIZHOGLQJWULDOV7KHVH
WULDOVKDGWKHIROORZLQJJRDOV
x (YDOXDWHWKHQHHGIRULQWHUSDVVFOHDQLQJ
x 'HWHUPLQHWKHHIIHFWRIWUDYHODQJOHRQZHOGTXDOLW\
x 'HYHORSZHOGLQJSDUDPHWHUVWRDYRLGFRUQHUUROORII
x &UHDWHDPRFNEXLOGXS
x 7HVWWKHPRFNEXLOGXSZLWK57KDUGQHVVPDSSLQJDQGPHFKDQLFDOWHVWLQJ
(:,FRQGXFWHGDOODXWRPDWHG)&$:WULDOVXVLQJDD[LVZHOGLQJURERWZLWKDLQ
VHOIVKLHOGHG)&$:HOHFWURGH$VKLHOGLQJJDVPL[RISHUFHQW$UJRQDQGSHUFHQW&2ZDV
XVHGWRLPSURYHDUFVWDELOLW\GHFUHDVHIXPHJHQHUDWLRQDQGLPSURYHYLVLELOLW\)LJXUH
LOOXVWUDWHVWKHGLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQSXVK DQGGUDJ WUDYHODQJOHV

)LJXUH,OOXVWUDWLRQRI3XVKDQG'UDJ7UDYHO$QJOHV

,QWHUSDVV&OHDQLQJ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ
,Q)&$:WKHPROWHQZHOGSRROLVSURWHFWHGE\DVODJFRDWLQJ7KLVFRDWLQJLVW\SLFDOO\FKLSSHG
RUEUXVKHGRIIDIWHUHDFKLQGLYLGXDOZHOGEHDGWRSUHYHQWVODJLQFOXVLRQV:KLOHDXWRPDWHGEUXVK
FOHDQLQJV\VWHPVDUHFRPPHUFLDOO\DYDLODEOHDQGFRXOGEHLQWHJUDWHGLQWRDILQDODXWRPDWHG
VROXWLRQPLQLPL]LQJLQWHUEHDGFOHDQLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVLVLPSRUWDQWEHFDXVHLWZRXOGDOORZDOHVV
FRPSOH[V\VWHPWRPDNHUHSDLUZHOGVLQWKHILHOG(:,FUHDWHGDPRFNEXLOGXSUHPRYLQJVODJ
RQO\XSRQFRPSOHWLRQRIHDFKOD\HUWRGHWHUPLQHWKHYLDELOLW\RIWKLVDSSURDFK6XEVHTXHQWSDVVHV
LQDJLYHQOD\HUZHUHFRPSOHWHGZLWKRXWGHOD\ZHOGEHDGVZHUHQRWSHHQHGDQGVODJZDV
UHPRYHGRQO\XSRQWKHFRPSOHWLRQRIHDFKPXOWLEHDGOD\HU7KHEXLOGXSZDVZHOGHGRQHOD\HU
DWDWLPHDQGDOORZHGWRFRROWRDSSUR[LPDWHO\)EHIRUHZHOGLQJRIWKHVXEVHTXHQWOD\HU

EHJDQ7KHZHOGLQJSDUDPHWHUVDQGZHOGLQJVHTXHQFHDUHSURYLGHGLQ7DEOHDQG)LJXUH
UHVSHFWLYHO\

7DEOH,QWHUSDVV&OHDQLQJ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ:HOGLQJ3DUDPHWHUV

Current (A) 200
Voltage (V) 30
Travel Speed (ipm) 20
Deposition rate (lbs/hr) 7 to 8
Heat Input (kJ/in) 18
Travel Angle () 15

)LJXUH:HOG6HTXHQFH8VHGIRU$XWRPDWHG%XLOGXS:LWKRXW,QWHUSDVV&OHDQLQJ

(:,HYDOXDWHGWKHEXLOGXSXVLQJ57/LQHDUVODJLQFOXVLRQVZHUHIRXQGWKURXJKRXWZKLFK
LQGLFDWHGDQHHGIRULQWHUSDVVFOHDQLQJ7KHSKRWRPDFURJUDSKRIDFURVVVHFWLRQ SURYLGHGLQ
)LJXUH VKRZVDGHTXDWHSHQHWUDWLRQDQGIXVLRQZLWKWKHEDVHPDWHULDODQGSUHYLRXVO\GHSRVLWHG
ZHOGEHDGVKRZHYHUDODUJHVODJLQFOXVLRQLVYLVLEOHLQWKHFHQWHURIWKHEXLOGXS7KHKDUGQHVV
PDWUL[SURYLGHGLQ)LJXUHLQGLFDWHVWKDWWKHKDUGQHVVRIWKHZHOGPHWDOUDQJHGIURPWR
%ULQHOODQGKDUGQHVVGDWDIURPWKHEDVHPHWDOLQGLFDWHVWKDWWKHKHDWIURPZHOGLQJUHVXOWHGLQ
KDUGHQLQJZHOOEHORZWKHYLVLEOH+$='XHWRWKHQXPEHURIVODJLQFOXVLRQVIRXQG(:,GLGQRW
SHUIRUPWHQVLOHWHVWLQJ

)LJXUH&URVV6HFWLRQRI$XWRPDWHG)&$:%XLOGXS:LWKRXW,QWHUSDVV&OHDQLQJ

)LJXUH+DUGQHVV0DSRI$XWRPDWHG)&$:%XLOGXS:LWKRXW,QWHUSDVV&OHDQLQJ

(IIHFWRI7UDYHO$QJOHRQ:HOG4XDOLW\
(:,FUHDWHGDQRWKHUPRFNEXLOGXSZLWKLQWHUSDVVFOHDQLQJXVLQJD³GHJUHH´WUDYHODQJOHDQG
H[DPLQHGLWZLWK57:KLOHWKHQXPEHURIVODJLQFOXVLRQVZDVUHGXFHGWKH\ZHUHQRWHOLPLQDWHG
(:,ZHOGHGDQRWKHUPRFNEXLOGXSZLWKD³GHJUHH´DQJOHWRHYDOXDWHZKHWKHUVODJLQFOXVLRQV
FRXOGEHIXUWKHUUHGXFHGRUHOLPLQDWHGE\GLUHFWLQJWKHDUFIRUFHDQGPROWHQVODJEDFNZDUGV7KLV
WHFKQLTXHDYRLGV³UXQQLQJRYHU´WKHVODJDQGWUDSSLQJLWDWWKHERWWRPRIWKHZHOGEHDG7KH57
H[DPLQDWLRQUHYHDOHGDVLJQLILFDQWUHGXFWLRQLQVODJLQFOXVLRQV$VDUHVXOWDGUDJDQJOHZDVXVHG
LQDOOVXEVHTXHQWZHOGV

$XWRPDWHG)&$::HOGLQJ3DUDPHWHU'HYHORSPHQW
:KHQDIURJLVUHSDLUHGZHOGEHDGVPXVWEHGHSRVLWHGRQWKHFRUQHURIWKHSRLQWDVZHOODVLQWKH
PLGGOH7KHVHWZRVFHQDULRVSUHVHQWGLIIHUHQWZHOGLQJFKDOOHQJHV$VLOOXVWUDWHGLQ)LJXUH
ZHOGVSODFHGRQWKHFRUQHURIWKHSRLQWDUHDWULVNRI³GURRSLQJ´GXHWRWKHIRUFHRIJUDYLW\$IWHU
WKHWZRFRUQHUEHDGVDUHGHSRVLWHGFHQWHUEHDGVFDQEHGHSRVLWHGZLWKRXWIHDURIGURRSLQJ
)LJXUH ,QWKLVFDVHDKLJKHUKHDWLQSXWSDUDPHWHUFDQEHXVHGIRULQFUHDVHGSURGXFWLYLW\

)LJXUH&RUQHU%HDG:HOGLQJ

)LJXUH&HQWHU%HDG:HOGLQJ

EWI developed two welding parameter sets to address these different scenarios. A lower heat-
input parameter was developed to allow weld beads to be deposited on a corner without drooping
(Table 10). EWI developed a higher heat input parameter for use on center beads to create a flat
weld bead that allows for adequate tie-in when welding in the middle of the mock-up, and
provides adequate heat to reduce slag inclusions (Table 11).
Table 10: Automated FCAW Corner Bead Parameter
Current (A) 140

Voltage (V) 21
Deposition rate (lbs/hr) 6
Travel Angle (°) -15
Table 11: Automated FCAW Center Bead Parameter
Current (A) 200

Voltage (V) 28
Heat Input (kJ/in) 23.5
22
3.1.4 Automated FCAW Mock Build-up Creation and Testing
EWI created a build-up using the parameters described above. The photo-macrograph of a cross-
section (provided in Figure 22) shows adequate penetration and fusion with the base material and
previously deposited weld beads.
Figure 22: Cross Section of Automated FCAW Build-up with Interpass Cleaning and
15-Degree Drag Angle
EWI performed an RT inspection of the automated FCAW mock build-up. The number of slag
inclusions found in the mock build-up was significantly less than in previous automated FCAW
build-ups and no porosity was observed. The hardness matrix provided in Figure 23 indicates that
the hardness of the weld metal ranged from 250 to 320 Brinell, with hardening below the visible
HAZ. The area of higher hardness in the center suggests higher core temperatures during welding,
which may be due to the fact that minimal time elapsed between welding passes (since the surface
temperature did not exceed the limit of 500°F).
23
Figure 23: Hardness Map of Automated FCAW Build-up
Tensile testing results are provided in Table 12. The reported tensile strengths are within the
AWS-supplied range for as-cast AMS components, and are similar to the baseline SMAW data.
The higher average YS may reduce plastic deformation and positively impact overall durability
while reducing the grinding required.
Table 12: Tensile Test Results from Automated FCAW Build-up with Interpass Cleaning
and 15-Degree Drag Angle
3.2 Reciprocating Wire Feed (RWF) FCAW Trials

RWF GMAW is a variation of the GMAW process in which the wire motion is synchronized with
a current waveform. When the electrode is being fed toward the weld pool, the current is at its
peak and a ball is formed at its end. When the electrode contacts the weld pool, the current is
decreased, and the ball detaches due to the combination of surface tension forces and retraction of
the wire. Since no electrical shorting occurs, minimal spatter is produced. Another advantage of
RWF GMAW is that it can be operated at low voltages, which results in low heat input levels.
Although the process is designed to be used with a solid electrode, EWI combined it with the
previously evaluated commercially available flux cored electrode as a method of decreasing heat
input and improving process consistency. Per AWS, the use of a flux-cored electrode in place of a
24
solid electrode necessitates a process designation change from GMAW to FCAW. As a result, this
EWI-modified process is herein referred to as RWF FCAW.
3.2.1 FCAW Welding Parameter Development

EWI conducted parameter development trials using a 0.045-in diameter electrode and 75 percent
Argon / 25 percent CO2 shielding gas. A 15-degree drag angle was used to improve arc stability
and decrease the risk of slag entrapment in the weld. EWI developed two welding parameter sets.
The lower heat input parameter is shown in Table 13, and the higher heat input parameter set is
shown in Table 14. A weave was added to the higher heat input parameter set to promote
improved wetting and tie-in. This parameter set was designed to create a flat weld bead that
reduced slag inclusions and allowed for adequate tie-in when welding in the middle of the mock-
up.
Table 13: Low Heat-input Automated RWF FCAW Parameters
Current (A) 150

Voltage (V) 17.5
Table 14: High Deposition-rate Automated RWF FCAW Parameters
Current (A) 195

Voltage (V) 18.5
3.2.2 FCAW Mock Build-up Creation and Testing

EWI created a build-up and evaluated it using RT. As they did in the automated FCAW build-up,
EWI used the lower heat input parameters on the corners and the higher heat input parameters in
the center. No porosity was found; however, more slag inclusions were found than in the build-up
generated by automated FCAW. The photo-macrograph of the cross section in Figure 24 shows
adequate penetration and fusion with the base material and previously deposited weld beads.
25
Figure 24: Cross Section of Automated RWF FCAW Build-up
The hardness matrix (see Figure 25) indicates that the hardness of the weld metal ranges from 250
to 320 Brinell. This hardness matrix is dissimilar from Figure 23, in that areas of peak hardness
are spread throughout the cross section. The beads on the right side, which were primarily low
heat input beads, have lower hardness. Tensile testing results are provided in Table 15. The
reported tensile strengths are within AWS-supplied range for as-cast AMS components and are
similar to the baseline SMAW data. The higher average YS may reduce plastic deformation with
the potential to positively impact overall durability while reducing required grinding.
Figure 25: Hardness Map of Automated RWF FCAW Build-up
26
7DEOH7HQVLOH7HVW5HVXOWVIURP$XWRPDWHG5:))&$:%XLOGXS
%DVHOLQH7HVWLQJDQG$XWRPDWHG)&$:'HYHORSPHQW2YHUYLHZ
7DEOHFRPSDUHVWHQVLOHWHVWLQJIURPEDVHOLQHPRFNEXLOGXSVFUHDWHGLQ7DVNWRWKH)&$:$
DQG5:))&$:PRFNEXLOGXSVFUHDWHGLQ7DVN

7DEOH2YHUYLHZRI7HQVLOH7HVWLQJ5HVXOWVIRU$OO%XLOGXSVIURP7DVNDQG7DVN
7DEOHVXPPDUL]HVWKHZHOGLQJSURFHVVHV)RUWKHSXUSRVHVRIWKLVRYHUYLHZSURGXFWLYLW\LV
UDWHGE\FRQVLGHULQJERWKGHSRVLWLRQUDWHDQGWKHUHTXLUHGLQWHUSDVVFRROLQJWLPH)RUDJLYHQ
GHSRVLWLRQUDWHSURFHVVHVZLWKDVKRUWHULQWHUSDVVFRROLQJWLPHDUHFRQVLGHUHGWRKDYHDKLJKHU
SURGXFWLYLW\WKDQWKRVHZLWKORQJHULQWHUSDVVFRROLQJWLPHV,QWKHFKDUWSURYLGHGWKHGHJUHHWR
ZKLFKWKHEDOOLVFRORUHGLQEODFNUHSUHVHQWVWKHUDWLQJIRUWKDWFDWHJRU\$EDOOZLWKDTXDUWHU
FRORUHGEODFNUHSUHVHQWVWKHORZHVWUDWLQJZKLOHDEDOOWKDWLVFRPSOHWHO\EODFNUHSUHVHQWVWKH
KLJKHVWUDWLQJ
%DVHGRQ7DEOHDQGWKHWHVWLQJUHVXOWVDXWRPDWHG)&$:ZDVVHOHFWHGIRUDOOVXEVHTXHQW
ZHOGLQJ$ILQDODXWRPDWHG)&$:SURFHGXUHVXPPDU\LVSURYLGHGLQ7DEOH

7DEOH3URFHVV&RPSDULVRQ6XPPDU\

7DEOH$XWRPDWHG)&$:&RUQHU%HDG3DUDPHWHU

$XWRPDWHG)&$:
&RPPRQ3DUDPHWHUV
(OHFWURGH'LDPHWHU LQ
(OHFWURGH7\SH )OX[FRUHG
3RODULW\ 'LUHFW&XUUHQW(OHFWURGH3RVLWLYH
6KLHOGLQJ*DV SHUFHQW$UJRQSHUFHQW&2
7UDYHO$QJOH GUDJ
7UDYHO6SHHG LSP
0D[,QWHUSDVV7HPS ) )LQIURPWKHZHOG
&RUQHU:HOG3DUDPHWHUV
&XUUHQW $
9ROWDJH 9
'HSRVLWLRQUDWH OEVKU
+HDW,QSXW N-LQ
&HQWHU:HOG3DUDPHWHUV
&XUUHQW $
9ROWDJH 9
'HSRVLWLRQUDWH OEVKU
+HDW,QSXW N-LQ

3.4 Field Repair Evaluation
TTCI supplied a worn partial AMS frog section that had been field-repaired. EWI used this section
to evaluate weld quality and to develop the welding sequence on the actual frog geometry prior to
welding the full-size frogs for in-track testing at TTCI. While TTCI did not know the number of
repairs that had been performed, a CSX railroad representative verified that the level of wear and
the quality of the repair were typical of what is seen in the field. Images of the supplied frog are
provided in Figure 26 and Figure 27. A typical “breakout” which is caused by lack of maintenance
grinding is shown in Figure 27.
EWI removed the field-repaired area towards the heel of the frog section (located at the top of
Figure 26), examined it using RT, and cross-sectioned it to evaluate weld quality. The photo-
macrograph provided in Figure 28 shows that stainless steel was used as a “butter” layer between
the base material and the manganese alloy repair weld, which is common practice when welding
over a crack. Stainless steel has been shown to retard crack growth; however, due to its
significantly decreased hardness compared to AMS, railroads require that the stainless steel deposit
be at least 0.75 in below the running surface.
Figure 26: Field-Repaired Frog
29
Figure 27: Breakout on Field-Repaired Frog
Figure 28: Cross Section of Repaired Area Showing Use of Stainless Steel in First
Two Layers
EWI performed RT on the section as shown in Figure 29. This film was shot from above and
revealed significant porosity at both sides of the weld. According to a railroad representative, this
is a common discontinuity associated with the improper use of carbon blocks. Carbon blocks are
used to provide a surface for edge beads to “roll” against. Some welders wedge the carbon block
to fit it tight against the corner being welded and minimize post-weld finish grinding. As a result,
the welding arc contacts the carbon block, contaminating the weld and causing porosity. The
railroad representative added that breakout failures often reveal large pores, suggesting that these
pores significantly weaken the weld repair.
30
Figure 29: RT of Repaired Area Showing Pores at the Edges Due to Contamination
from Carbon Blocks
3.5 Weld Repair of Partial Frog

The uncut portions of the field-repaired frog were used to develop the welding sequence for the
wing and point. A railroad representative taught EWI personnel how to remove the damaged
sections of the frog and prepare it for repair welding using carbon arc gouging. EWI then
smoothed the surfaces by grinding. Figure 30 shows the frog section after carbon arc gouging and
grinding. EWI documented the locations where material was removed as well as the geometry to
allow the same joint preparation to be used on subsequently welded frogs.
Figure 30: Frog After Removal of Damaged Material with Carbon Arc Gouging and
Grinding
EWI used two parameter sets to complete welding on the frog section. EWI used the lower heat
input parameters on the corners of the point, and the higher heat input parameters when welding in
the center of the point and on the wing (parameters described in Section 3.2). Photo-macrographs
of cross sections taken from the point and the wing after weld repair are provided in Figure 31 and
Figure 32, respectively.
31
Figure 31: Cross Section of Repair-welded Point
Figure 32: Cross Section of Repair-welded Wing
3.6 Evaluation of Partial Frog Weld Repair

EWI used RT to assess the weld quality of the repaired wing and point. Weld quality was
comparable to that of the FCAW-A mock build-ups, and no lack-of-fusion discontinuities were
found. EWI performed tensile testing on both the point and wing repair and Table 19 provides a
comparison with previous tensile testing results. While the yield strength was lower than that of
the FCAW-A mock build-up repair, it was still within typical range of casting properties. The
UTS dropped as well, but it was still higher than the typical range.
32
(:,DOVRSHUIRUPHG&KDUS\9QRWFKWHVWLQJWRHYDOXDWHWRXJKQHVVDWURRPWHPSHUDWXUHDQG
DW) 7DEOH $VH[SHFWHGWRXJKQHVVGHFUHDVHGVLJQLILFDQWO\ZLWKWKHGHFUHDVHLQ
WHPSHUDWXUH

7DEOH&RPSDULVRQRI$OO7HQVLOH7HVWLQJ5HVXOWV
7DEOH&KDUS\9QRWFK7RXJKQHVV3URSHUWLHV
(:,FRQFOXGHGWKDWWKHGHYHORSHG)&$:$SDUDPHWHUVFRXOGEHXVHGWRHIIHFWLYHO\UHSDLUWKH
UHPRYHGVHFWLRQV

5HSDLURI)XOO/HQJWK)URJVIRU77&,7HVWLQJ
77&,DOVRVXSSOLHG(:,ZLWKWZRIXOOOHQJWKIURJV )URJDQG)URJ IRUUHSDLUDQG
VXEVHTXHQWSODFHPHQWLQWKHWHVWWUDFNIRUHYDOXDWLRQ)URJZDVDFRQIRUPDOIURJDQGKDG
PRUHZHDUQDPHO\³EUHDNRXWV´RQERWKZLQJV )LJXUH $FRQIRUPDOIURJKDVDQLPSURYHG
JHRPHWU\WKDWPRUHHYHQO\GLVWULEXWHVZKHHOORDGVWRPLQLPL]HFRQWDFWVWUHVVHVDQGUHVXOWDQW
SODVWLFGHIRUPDWLRQ)URJZDVDVWDQGDUGIODWIURJDQGKDGPLQLPDOZHDUIURP0*7VRI
WUDIILF )LJXUH

)LJXUH)URJ0DUNHGIRU&DUERQ$UF*RXJLQJ

)LJXUH)URJ0DUNHGIRU&DUERQ$UF*RXJLQJ

3UHSDUDWLRQRI)URJVIRU:HOG5HSDLU
(:,UHSDLUHGWKHSRLQWDQGWKH³SRLQWIDFLQJOHIW´ZLQJRIHDFKIURJ7KH³SRLQWIDFLQJULJKW´
ZLQJVZHUHQRWUHSDLUHGVLQFH77&,¶VSODQZDVWRWHVWRQO\RQHZLQJLQWUDFN(:,UHPRYHG
PDWHULDOWRPLPLFDILHOGUHSDLUZKLFKZDVEDVHGRQWKHDPRXQWRIPDWHULDOWKDWZDVUHPRYHG
IURPWKHSDUWLDOIURJIRUZHOGLQJVHTXHQFHGHYHORSPHQW6LQFHQHLWKHU)URJQRU)URJ
UHTXLUHGWKHVDPHOHYHORIUHSDLUDVWKHSDUWLDOIURJWKLVPHDQWWKDWH[FHVVPDWHULDOZDVUHPRYHGWR
FUHDWHD³W\SLFDO´UHSDLUVFHQDULR7KHUHSDLUHGSRLQWVHFWLRQVRIERWKIURJVZHUHH[WHQGHGWRZDUG
WKHKHHOWRVLPXODWHDUHSDLURIWKHDUHDWKDWZDVFXWRXWIRU57FURVVVHFWLRQLQJDVLOOXVWUDWHGLQ
)LJXUH

)LJXUH0DWHULDO5HPRYDO,OOXVWUDWLRQ
$VZLWKWKHSDUWLDOIURJ(:,XVHGFDUERQDUFJRXJLQJWRFRPSOHWHWKHEXONRIWKHUHTXLUHG
PDWHULDOUHPRYDO)LJXUHVKRZVWKHFDUERQDUFJRXJLQJSURFHVVZKLOH)LJXUHVKRZV
)URJDIWHUWKHFRPSOHWLRQRIFDUERQDUFJRXJLQJ(:,WKHQJURXQGERWKIURJVVPRRWKWR
SUHSDUHIRUZHOGUHSDLU )LJXUHDQG)LJXUH

Figure 36: Carbon Arc Gouging Process
Figure 37: Complete Carbon Arc Gouging
35
Figure 38: Frog #1 After Grinding
Figure 39: Frog #1 After Grinding
3.7.2 Weld Repair of Frog #1

EWI completed welding of Frog #1 using the procedure developed on the field-repaired frog
(Table 21). Six layers were required to build-up the wing of Frog #1. The number of beads per
36
layer decreased with successive weld layers, as shown in Figure 40. The maximum recorded
interpass temperature of the wing repair, as measured 1 in from the weld, was 219°F. A
photograph of the completed wing repair is provided in Figure 41. The maximum interpass
temperature reached during welding of the point was 228°F.
Seven layers were required to build the point up to the required height. Upon the recommendation
of railroad welding supervisors, EWI deposited additional material at the heel of the frog to ensure
a smooth transition between the weld repaired area and the unwelded area. Prior to depositing this
material, EWI removed 0.125 in of adjacent material to ensure that welds were not deposited on
work-hardened material which would be more prone to cracking. Four layers were required to
build up this area to allow for a smooth transition (Figure 42). The maximum interpass
temperature reached during the deposition of these additional layers was 235°F.
Table 21: Test Frog Welding Parameters
Automated FCAW
Common Parameters
Electrode Diameter (in) 0.045
Electrode Type Flux-cored
Polarity Direct Current, Electrode Positive
Shielding Gas 75 percent Argon/25 percent CO2
Travel Angle (°) -15 (drag)
Max Interpass Temp. (°F) 500°F 1-in from the weld
Corner Weld Parameters
Current (A) 140
Voltage (V) 21
Center Weld Parameters
Current (A) 200
Voltage (V) 28
37

)LJXUH)URJ:LQJ5HSDLU:HOGLQJ6HTXHQFH

)LJXUH)URJ$IWHU:LQJ5HSDLU

Figure 42: Frog #1 After Additional “Taper” Weld Build-up
3.7.2.1 Frog #1 Weld Cracking

EWI observed cracks oriented transverse to the welding direction in the base material during
welding of the transition area (Figure 43). EWI ground these cracks out and removed 0.125 in of
material from the adjacent area to avoid welding on work-hardened material (Figure 44). Since
the cracks extended 0.25 in deep, EWI filled these areas and ground the surface smooth before
depositing subsequent layers (Figure 45 and Figure 46). EWI extended the grinding into the
previously welded area to determine if cracks extended into the weld; however, no additional
cracks were found using dye-penetrant testing.
39
Figure 43: Base Material Cracking in Frog #1 at Interface with “Transition” Build-up
Figure 44: Removal of Cracks from Frog #1 to Allow Repair Welding
40
Figure 45: Filling of Cracks in Frog #1
Figure 46: Frog #1 Crack-fill Welds Ground Smooth
EWI concluded that the cracking of the base material was caused by a combination of two factors.
The first factor was the high hardness and relatively low ductility of the work-hardened base
material adjacent to the weld. The second factor was the high residual stresses associated with
multiple overlapping weld craters adjacent to the work-hardened base material, which is
significant because the weld crater is typically hotter than the start of the weld. The increased heat
leads to increased penetration and higher residual stresses than at the start of the weld. Since the
base material cannot be altered to alleviate the problem, EWI developed a new welding sequence
to relocate the weld craters away from the interface with the work-hardened base material,
reducing residual weld stresses and successfully eliminating cracking of the base material. The
modified procedure does not add any additional time to the repair process, and therefore will have
no effect on productivity.
41
EWI deposited a third layer in the original welding direction to even out the build-up and ensure
the proper height; however, this layer did not extend to the interface between the weld repair and
the work-hardened base material (Figure 47).
Figure 47: Weld Build-up to Complete Frog #1 Crack Repair
The repair sequence used on the point of Frog #1 is summarized below (and illustrated in
Figure 48).
(1) Original point geometry.
(2) EWI removed material to simulate a worst-case scenario field repair using carbon arc
gouging and grinding.
(3) EWI deposited seven layers to build up the removed material. Layers were nine to ten
beads wide.
(4) EWI removed additional material toward the heel of the point to create a smooth
transition in accordance with the recommendation of CSX personnel.
(5) EWI deposited four layers to build up the removed material in the transition area. Two
cracks were found in the base material adjacent to the weld craters during dye-penetrant
testing.
(6) EWI removed the cracks by grinding, and removed 0.125 in of material from the
adjacent surface area.
(7) After filling the deep area where the cracks were removed and grinding the area flush,
EWI deposited two layers in the opposite direction of all other welding passes to
minimize heating of the unground, work-hardened base material. An additional layer
was deposited in the original direction to even out the height of the build-up.
(8) TTCI ground the frog to final shape.
42

)LJXUH,OOXVWUDWLRQRI)URJ3RLQW5HSDLU6HTXHQFH
(:,VHQWWKHUHSDLUHGIURJWR77&,WREHJURXQGWRVKDSHDQGLQVSHFWHGLQSUHSDUDWLRQIRU
LQVWDOODWLRQLQWUDFN$IWHUJULQGLQJWKHIURJWRVKDSH77&,IRXQGDFUDFNLQWKHSRLQWRI)URJ
DVVKRZQLQ)LJXUH$VLQWKHFUDFNIRXQGLQWKHKHHORI)URJWKHFUDFNZDVORFDWHGLQWKH
EDVHPDWHULDODGMDFHQWWRWKHZHOGUHSDLUHGDUHD'XHWRSURMHFWEXGJHWDQGVFKHGXOHFRQVWUDLQWV
WKLVFUDFNZDVQRWUHSDLUHGZLWKWKHZHOGVHTXHQFLQJUHSDLUPHWKRG GHVFULEHGDERYH

)LJXUH&UDFN)RXQGLQ3RLQWRI)URJ

)URJ
(:,XVHGWKHVDPHDSSURDFKWRZHOG)URJWKDWZDVXVHGRQ)URJ7KURXJKRXWZHOGLQJRI
WKHZLQJWKHPD[LPXPLQWHUSDVVWHPSHUDWXUHUHDFKHGDVPHDVXUHGLQIURPWKHZHOGZDV)
)LJXUHLOOXVWUDWHVWKHZHOGLQJVHTXHQFHXVHGWRUHSDLUWKHZLQJ6L[OD\HUVZHUHUHTXLUHGWR
EXLOGXSWKHZLQJWRWKHUHTXLUHGKHLJKW$SKRWRJUDSKRIWKHFRPSOHWHGZLQJUHSDLULVSURYLGHG
LQ)LJXUH

)LJXUH)URJ:LQJ5HSDLU:HOGLQJ6HTXHQFH

)LJXUH)URJ$IWHU:LQJ5HSDLU
(:,GHSRVLWHGHLJKWOD\HUVRQWKHSRLQWWREXLOGXSWKHUHPRYHGPDWHULDO7KHPD[LPXP
LQWHUSDVVWHPSHUDWXUHPHDVXUHGLQIURPWKHZHOGZDV)8SRQWKHUHFRPPHQGDWLRQRI
UDLOURDGZHOGLQJVXSHUYLVRUV(:,GHSRVLWHGDGGLWLRQDOPDWHULDODWWKHKHHORIWKHIURJWRHQVXUHD
VPRRWKWUDQVLWLRQEHWZHHQWKHZHOGUHSDLUHGDUHDDQGWKHXQZHOGHGDUHD(:,JURXQGWKHVXUIDFH
WRDGHSWKRILQWRHQVXUHWKDWZHOGVZHUHQRWGHSRVLWHGRQZRUNKDUGHQHGPDWHULDOZKLFK
ZRXOGEHPRUHSURQHWRFUDFNLQJ )LJXUH 7ZROD\HUVZHUHUHTXLUHGWREXLOGXSWKLVDUHDWR
PDWFKWKHKHLJKWRIWKHSUHYLRXVO\ZHOGHGVHFWLRQ )LJXUH 7KHPD[LPXPLQWHUSDVV
WHPSHUDWXUHUHDFKHGGXULQJWKHGHSRVLWLRQRIWKHVHOD\HUVZDV)

Figure 52: Preparation of Frog #2 Transition Area
Figure 53: Layer 1 Welding of Frog #2 Transition Area
Three additional layers were deposited to ensure that sufficient material was deposited in order to
allow EWI to finish grinding. The maximum interpass temperature reached during the deposition
of these three layers was 239°F.
No cracking occurred during the welding of Frog #2. The repair sequence used on the point is
summarized below and illustrated in Figure 54.
(1) Original frog geometry.
(2) EWI removed material from the point to simulate a worst-case scenario field repair using
carbon arc gouging and grinding.
(3) EWI deposited eight layers to build-up the removed material. Layers were nine to ten
beads wide.
(4) EWI removed additional material toward the heel of the point according to the
recommendation of CSX personnel.
(5) EWI deposited two layers to build up the removed material.
(6) EWI deposited two additional layers that were nearly the full length of the repair to build
the height of the point to match the height of the wings. EWI also deposited one
additional, shorter layer to build up a “dip” in the repaired area.
(7) TTCI ground the frog to final shape.
45

)LJXUH)URJ5HSDLU6HTXHQFH

'XHWRWKHSUHVHQFHRIDQXQUHSDLUHGFUDFNLQWKHEDVHPDWHULDODGMDFHQWWRWKHZHOGUHSDLU
)URJZDVQRWWHVWHG)URJZDVSODFHGLQ77&¶VKLJKWRQQDJHORRS +7/ ZKHUHLWZDV
WHVWHGDQGPRQLWRUHG$WWKHFRQFOXVLRQRIWHVWLQJWKHIURJZDVUHPRYHGDQGUHWXUQHGWR(:,IRU
SRVWWHVWODERUDWRU\HYDOXDWLRQ

4. Track and Laboratory Testing Results
TTCI monitored the performance of Frog #2 under 40 mph heavy axle load traffic, consisting of
approximately 110 cars with a gross rail load of 315,000 pounds. Traffic was run in both
directions. Since TTCI installed the frog in open track (not in a turnout) the frog point and only
one wing rail were subjected to the heavy axle load (HAL) traffic. TTCI performed the following
performance measurements:
● Profile and hardness measurement intervals: 0, 2, 5, 10, 20, 40, 70 and 100 MGTs
● Profile measurements were taken at the following locations with respect to the point
- Point measurements (inches): +2, +4, +6, +8 . . . +36
- Wing measurements (inches): -16, -8, 0.5, +2, +4, +6, +8 . . . +26
● Running surface hardness measurements taken at the following locations with respect to
the point: -16, -8, 0.5, +2, +8, +16 and +22
● Maintenance performed in accordance with the policy and procedures established for
TTCI’s HTL
After the maintenance grinding performed at 10.15 and 17.53 MGTs, no further maintenance was
required. The frog was removed from track after accumulating 118.16 MGTs. This is a
significant improvement over the typical maintenance intervals shown in Table 1, as it represents
over 100 MGTs of maintenance-free operation. A record of all performed maintenance is
provided in Table 22. In this table, Item 1 and 2 pertain to inspection and installation, while
Item 3 through Item 6 pertain to in-track maintenance.
Table 22: TTCI Frog Maintenance Record
TTCI measured the running surface wear at multiple locations along the length of the point and
wing throughout the duration of the test. Figure 55 shows the running surface wear along the
length of the point at approximately 100 MGT. An increase in running surface wear is indicated
47
approximately 32 inches from the point. At this location the load that was once “shared” by the
wing and point is completely transferred to the point. Figure 56 shows the area loss at this
location at different intervals throughout the service life of the frog. Profile measurements of this
location taken at 0 and 100 MGT are provided in Figure 57. The dotted line represents the wear
limit, indicating that significant additional running surface wear is available.
Figure 55: Point Running Surface Wear Along Length of Point
Figure 56: Running Surface Wear 32 inches Past Frog Point
48

)LJXUH3RLQW5XQQLQJ6XUIDFH:HDULQFKHVIURP3RLQWDWDQG0*7
77&,WRRNSHULRGLFKDUGQHVVPHDVXUHPHQWVDWWKUHHGLIIHUHQWORFDWLRQVRQWKHUXQQLQJVXUIDFH$V
VKRZQLQ)LJXUHKDUGQHVVLQFUHDVHGTXLFNO\RYHUWKHLQWHUYDOIURPWR0*7WKHQDJDLQ
RYHUWKHLQWHUYDOIURPWR0*7$IWHU0*7WKHKDUGQHVVGURSSHGDQGWKHQGURSSHG
DJDLQDIWHU0*77KHVHKDUGQHVVGURSVFRLQFLGHZLWKWKHRFFXUUHQFHRIPDLQWHQDQFH
JULQGLQJZKHUH77&,UHPRYHGZRUNKDUGHQHGPDWHULDO6LQFHRQO\DSRUWLRQRIWKHZRUN
KDUGHQHGPDWHULDOZDVUHPRYHGWKHKDUGQHVVGLGQRWGURSGRZQWROHYHORIWKHDVZHOGHGUHSDLU

)LJXUH3RLQW+DUGQHVV

TTCI measured the running surface wear at multiple locations along the length of the wing
(Figure 59). Figure 60 shows the area loss 8 inches past the point throughout the service life of
the frog. Profile measurements taken at 0 and 100 MGT are provided in Figure 61. The dotted
line represents the wear limit, indicating that significant additional running surface wear would
have to take place before a repair would be required. TTCI took periodic hardness measurements
at three different locations on the running surface (Figure 62). As with the point, hardness
increased significantly after just 2 MGTs.
Figure 59: Running Surface Wear Along Length of Wing
Figure 60: Wing Running Surface Wear 8 inches Past Frog Point
50

)LJXUH:LQJ5XQQLQJ6XUIDFH:HDULQFKHVIURP3RLQWDWDQG0*7

)LJXUH:LQJ+DUGQHVV

)LJXUHLVDQRYHUOD\RIUXQQLQJVXUIDFHZHDUGDWDDORQJWKHOHQJWKRIWKHIURJ$VWKHZKHHO
VWDUWVWRPRYHWRZDUGVWKHHGJHRIWKHUXQQLQJVXUIDFHRIWKHZLQJ SURJUHVVLQJIURPOHIWWRULJKW
WKHUHGXFWLRQLQFRQWDFWDUHDUHVXOWVLQDVXGGHQLQFUHDVHLQDUHDORVVDSSUR[LPDWHO\LQSDVWWKH
SRLQW$VDJUHDWHUSRUWLRQRIWKHORDGLVFDUULHGE\WKHSRLQWWKHZLQJZHDULVJUDGXDOO\UHGXFHG
XQWLOWKHHQWLUHORDGLVORFDWHGRQWKHSRLQW DWDSSUR[LPDWHO\LQSDVWWKHSRLQW

Figure 63: Combined Wing and Point Running Surface Wear
Spalling occurred at two locations on the frog point; however, this is a discontinuity commonly
found on worn AMS frogs and the spalling was not significant enough to remove the frog from
service (Figure 64). Termination of the in-track test after 118.16 MGTs was not due to wear, but
rather to the scheduled conclusion of the test according to the project plan. In their testing
summary report, TTCI stated that “based on visual inspection at the time it was removed from
track, the frog could have remained in service.”
Figure 64: Point Running Surface Spalls
4.1 Track Testing Summary

Frog #2 accumulated 118.16 MGTs before TTCI removed it from track and shipped it back to
EWI for evaluation. Based on the average frog life data presented in Table 1, the overall time in
testing represents a 240 percent increase in service life compared to the average life of repaired
frogs, and a 107 percent increase over the service life of new frogs. Decreased plastic deformation
led to a significant decrease in required maintenance, and after over 118 MGTs, the running
52
surface wear of the point and wing was less than 25 and 40 percent of the maximum allowable,
respectively.
4.2 EWI Laboratory Testing
EWI performed the following laboratory tests to evaluate Frog #2, after the conclusion of in-track
testing at TTCI:
● Ultrasonic testing (UT)
● Radiographic testing (RT)
● Cracking Analysis
● Metallurgical Examination
● Hardness Mapping
After the conclusion of in-track testing, EWI examined the repaired surfaces via UT and RT. EWI
used both of these methods because UT is a more effective method of detecting cracks, while RT
is better at detecting porosity. Phased array UT scans were performed from the running surfaces
using -30 to +30 degree refracted longitudinal waves and 35 to 70 degree shear waves. All
discontinuity indications were detected with the refracted longitudinal scan. Ten discontinuities
were found, and all indications were isolated to the weld overlay. An example of a UT scan image
is provided in Figure 65.
Figure 65: Ultrasonic Testing Scan Sample
EWI cut the repaired sections out of the frog (Figure 66) and inspected them using RT. RT
images were compared to the RT image of the field-repaired sample. An inspection summary
report is provided in Table 23. In this table, “Rail Number” FB1-1 refers to the field-repaired
sample; those beginning with “WX” designate sections of the wing; and, those beginning with
“PX” designate sections of the point. As noted in the report, over 120 pores were found in the 8-in
long field-repaired sample, while only 10 total pores were found in the combined linear 61 inches
of the full-thickness automated weld repairs (this number does not include the taper section
towards the heel). This is a reduction from 15 pores per linear inch of repair to 0.16 pores per inch
53
RIOLQHDUUHSDLU,PDJHVRI57ILOPVSURYLGHGLQ)LJXUHDQG)LJXUHSURYLGHDYLVXDO
FRPSDULVRQRIZHOGTXDOLW\,Q)LJXUHODUJHGHQVHO\SDFNHGDUHDVRISRURVLW\DUHORFDWHGQHDU
WKHHGJHVRIWKHORQJLWXGLQDOVXUIDFHV,Q)LJXUH 6HFWLRQ: QRLQGLFDWLRQVDUHYLVLEOH

)LJXUH/RFDWLRQVIURPZKLFK576SHFLPHQVZHUH5HPRYHG
7DEOH57,QVSHFWLRQ6XPPDU\

)LJXUH57,PDJHRI)LHOG5HSDLUHG6DPSOH

Figure 68: RT Image of Wing Repaired with EWI’s Automated FCAW Repair Technique
EWI cut cross-sections of the weld-repaired areas of the point and wing to understand the
reason(s) for its improved performance over current industry repair techniques by evaluating weld
quality, investigating cracking discontinuities, and studying its microstructure. Casting voids
present in the AMS base material are shown in Figure 69. As shown in Figure 70, fewer
discontinuities were found in automated FCAW welds compared to the base material, although
they are larger. Those that are present are isolated slag inclusions, and EWI’s examination
indicates that these inclusions are typically not correlated with the presence of cracks. Groups of
horizontal cracks likely due to shear loading were found (Figure 71 and Figure 72). These cracks
were not associated with any particular microstructure, grain boundaries, or discontinuity.
Figure 69: AMS Frog Casting Base Material Showing Multiple Voids
55
Figure 70: Weld Metal Showing Slag Inclusion
Figure 71: Horizontal Cracks Likely Due to Shear Loading (1)
56
Figure 72: Horizontal Cracks Likely Due to Shear Loading (2)
Figure 73 shows a crack in the base material adjacent to the fusion line of a weld pass from the
first layer of the build-up repair. It is unclear whether this crack was present prior to welding, or it
was induced by residual weld stresses in combination with base material discontinuities.
Figure 74 shows a slag inclusion, as well as a base material crack. Since this crack does not
extend into the weld, it can be concluded that this crack was present prior to welding. In both
examples, the crack has not propagated to failure after over 118 MGTs, indicating good toughness
of the base material and weld metal.
Figure 73: Crack in Base Material Adjacent to Weld Fusion Line
57
Figure 74: Slag Inclusion and Existing Base Material Crack
Surface cracks found in a cross-section of the point indicate significant shear loading. As shown
in Figure 75, larger cracks were present at the surface, while a series of smaller, stacked horizontal
cracks extended into the next weld layer. Figure 76 shows a close-up of these cracks, which were
found in other cross sections from the point as well. These subsurface cracks are similar to those
shown in Figure 71 and Figure 72.
Figure 75: Surface and Sub-surface Cracking in Point
58
Figure 76: Close-up of Sub-surface Cracking in Point
As shown in Figure 64, surface spalling was observed at two locations on the point. The cross-
section provided in Figure 77 shows the spalling located approximately 32 in past the point, at the
location of complete load transfer from the wing to the point. Figure 78 shows corner cracking at
the same location along the length of the point.
Figure 77: Surface Spalling 32 inches from Point
59
Figure 78: Cracking Located on Corner of Point
Photo-macrographs taken 9.5, 32 and 42 inches from the point are provided in Figure 79,
Figure 80, and Figure 81, respectively. The weld deposit in Figure 81 is significantly shallower
than the others because this area was welded to provide a smooth taper towards the heel of the
point.
Figure 79: Cross-section Taken 9.5 inches from Point
60
Figure 80: Cross-section Taken 32 inches from Point
Figure 81: Cross-section Taken 42 inches from Point
Photo-macrographs taken 8 and 19 inches from the wing are provided in Figure 82 and Figure 83,
respectively. The increased deformation seen in Figure 82 is the result of a reduced contact patch
created when the wheel moves towards the edge of the running surface. Deformation is reduced in
Figure 83, since a greater portion of the load was carried by the point at that location along the
length of the frog.
61
Figure 82: Cross-section Taken 8 inches from Wing
Figure 83: Cross-section Taken 19 inches from Wing
Figure 84 provides a hardness map of the point cross section shown in Figure 79. While the
hardness of the base material and first layers was approximately the same, the layers above have
been work-hardened with the hardest regions closest to the running surface. Figure 85 provides a
hardness map of the cross section shown in Figure 82. The top layers of the reduced-contact-patch
area have been work-hardened, with the hardest regions closest to the running surface.
62
Figure 84: Point Hardness Map 9.5 inches from Point
Figure 85: Wing Hardness Map 8 inches from Point
Table 24 provides results from a chemical analysis of the Frog #2 weld repair. In addition, the
cross-sections provided in Figure 86 and Figure 87 were examined to identify the microstructures
present. The eutectoid structure of the automated FCAW repair weld is associated with increased
yield strength and is expected to reduce the “flow,” which should lead to better durability.
63
Table 24: Chemical Compositions of Automated FCAW Repaired Weld
`1 FCAW-A Repair
Aluminum 0.003
Carbon 0.82
Chromium 3.92
Cobalt —
Copper 0.039
Iron Balance
Manganese 14.6
Molybdenum —
Nickel 0.60
Niobium —
Phosphorus 0.015
Silicon 0.004
Sulfur 0.010
Titanium 0.003
Tungsten 0.008
Vanadium 0.009
Figure 86: Automated FCAW Repair Microstructure – Top Layer
64
Figure 87: Automated FCAW Repair Microstructure – Second Layer
4.2.1 EWI Laboratory Testing Summary

The results of EWI’s post-test investigation indicate that the repair weld is of higher quality than
repairs made with current techniques. EWI’s examination of observed cracks indicates good
toughness, which corresponds to the results of TTCI’s in-track testing. No correlation was found
between weld discontinuities and weld defects, indicating that no significant benefit would be
realized by an increase in weld quality alone. The presence of pre-existing base material cracks
indicated that there was resistance to crack propagation, which further increases durability.
65
5. Automation Concept
5.1 Automated Repair System Concept

EWI created an in-track repair automation concept, illustrated in Figure 88 through Figure 92. In
this concept, two 6-axis robots are housed in a box truck, along with the required robot power
supplies, and a welding power supply (Figure 88). This concept includes a water tank mounted on
the underside of the truck (not pictured) as well as a supply of abrasive required for water-jet
cutting. Linkage would be included to allow the robot cart to be lowered onto the track
(Figure 89).
The robot cart is designed with a cutaway on either side to allow frog repair regardless of the
direction of the truck. The water-jet cutting robot would be used to prepare the frog for welding
by removing defective material. Welding would then be completed by the arc welding robot. It
may be possible to complete post-weld preparation using the water-jet cutting robot instead of
grinding. If not, post-weld grinding would be completed using existing methods.
Figure 88: Automation Concept with Robot Cart Retracted
Figure 89: Automation Concept Showing Deployed Robot Cart (View 1)
66
Figure 90: Automation Concept Showing Deployed Robot Cart (View 2)
Figure 91: Close-up View of Robot Cart
67
Figure 92: Top View of Automation Concept
5.2 Repair Approach Concept

The level of wear/damage and the resultant level of repair required can vary significantly between
frogs. Technology to address these variations exists, but can add significantly to the cost and
complexity of the repair solution. An alternate option is to create a known geometry in the most
commonly damaged areas and to preprogram the corresponding robot paths to complete the repair
of that geometry. This system proposes to use the latter of these two solutions. Since the level of
wear can vary from frog to frog, operators will be able to choose between a number of different
“wear levels”. The intent of this strategy is to limit excess material removal while still
standardizing the geometry. In addition to variations in the level of repair required, railroads use a
number of different frog geometries. These geometries vary with the frog number (indicative of
the angle of the frog) or the frog type (flat versus conformal). The most commonly used frogs
would be included in the program list. Operators would then choose a frog type and level of wear
to select the correct repair sequence.
68
6. Conclusions
EWI has successfully used automated FCAW to significantly improve the durability of repaired
AMS railroad frogs compared to currently used processes and techniques:
• Multiple parameter sets produced a weld repair requiring the minimum amount of post-
weld grinding to increase overall efficiency.
• Significant decrease in heat input reduced heating of the frog, which shortens the waiting
time required for the frog to cool to an acceptable temperature before resuming welding.
• A specialized crack mitigation technique allowed welds to be placed adjacent to work-
hardened material without base material cracking. The modified procedure does not add
additional time to the repair process, and therefore will have no effect on productivity.
The use of automated FCAW resulted in a significant increase in weld quality compared to field-
repaired samples and mock baseline samples created in the field and in EWI’s lab. An AMS frog
repaired using EWI’s technique was subjected to over 118 MGTs in TTC’s test track. This
represented a 240 percent increase in service life compared to the average life of repaired frogs,
and a 107 percent increase over the service life of new frogs.
At the time that the test frog was removed from the track, the running surface wear was
significantly below the maximum, which indicated that the frog could have remained in track.
Good weld quality can be seen in the ultrasound testing (UT) results, RT results, and in cross
sections taken from the completed weld after the conclusion of testing. EWI’s evaluation of cross-
sections taken from the wing and point indicates good toughness and increased weld quality over
baseline and field-repaired samples.
As a result of these significant gains, EWI has proposed a follow-up project to place frogs that
have been repaired with this technique into revenue service so they can be tested in the field. In
addition, EWI has identified the following areas for future research:
● UT evaluation of current weld quality, to create a baseline against which frogs repaired
using automation can be compared.
● Use of metal-cored wire to improve weld quality and eliminate the need for time-
consuming interpass cleaning required by the current FCAW consumable.
● Use of ultrasonic machining to prepare frogs for welding by removing damaged base
material and/or previous repairs, and to complete final machining. Railroads that have
participated in Phase I and Phase II have identified this topic as an area of significant
concern.
● Create an automation demonstration that showcases the technologies, techniques, and
concepts that will be incorporated into the final integrated solution.
69
7. References
(1) Davis, D., Sun, J., Terrill, V., and Hansen, B., “Industry Survey of Frog Weld Repair Best
Practices,” Association of American Railroads Research and Test Department Technology
Digest, 1997.
(2) Davis, D. D. and Rogers, P. D., “Comparison of Weld Repairs for Standard and High-
Integrity Rail Bound Manganese Frogs in Heavy Haul Service,” Association of American
Railroads Research and Test Department Technology Digest, 1996.
(3) Subramanyam, D. K., Swansiger, A. E., Avery, H. S., “Austenitic AMSs,” ASM Handbook
Volume 1, Properties and Selection: Irons, Steels, and High-Performance Alloys, pp. 822-
840, 1990.
(4) Handbook for Track Welders: MW&S Standard Procedure for Welding Repairs to Rail and
Track Fixtures and Grinding”, Norfolk Southern Corporation, December 1992.
(5) “How to Repair AMS Castings,” Abex Corporation Amsco Division, Bulletin WB-873.
(6) “Instructions Governing the Inspection, Welding, Grinding and Heat Treatment of Track
Components,” Union Pacific Railroad Company Engineering Services, November 1990.
(7) “Recommended Practices for the Welding of Rails and Rail Related Components for Use By
Rail Vehicles,” American Welding Society AWS D15.2, pp. 21-23, 2003.
(8) “Welding Alloys for Railroad Track Maintenance,” McKay Technical Report.
70
Appendix. TTCI Report
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AMS Austenitic Manganese Steel

AWS American Welding Society
CSC Controlled Short-Circuiting
CV Constant Voltage
FCAW Flux-Cored Arc Welding
FCAW-A Flux-Cored Arc Welding Automated
GMAW Gas Metal Arc Welding
HAL Heavy Axle Load
HAZ Heat-Affected Zone
HTL High-Tonnage Loop
MGT Million Gross Tons
RT Radiographic Testing
RWF Reciprocating Wire Feed
SA-FCAW Semi-Automatic Flux-Cored Arc Welding
SMAW Shielded Metal Arc Welding
TTCI Transportation Technology Center, Inc.
UT Ultrasonic Testing
UTS Ultimate Tensile Strength
YS Yield Strength
117

Weld Repair of Manganese Frogs Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weld Repair of Manganese Frogs Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weld Repair of Manganese Frogs Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weld Repair of Manganese Frogs for Enhanced

DOT/FRA/ORD-17/01 Final Report

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Reciprocating Wire Feed Radiographic Testing 124

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION

Implementation of automation reduced the calculated heat input by up to 64 percent compared to

Table 1: Average Million Gross Tons (MGTs) before Repair(1)

New 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

New 1st Subsequent

Figure 2: Breakout on Wing

1.3 Overall Approach

2.1 Objectives and Approach

2.2 Baseline Welding

2.3 Evaluation of Baseline Welds

Electrode Time per Thickness

SMAW 5/32 180 24 4 to 6 45 to 65 3 20 0.045

Figure 7: Baseline SMAW Cross Section

(:,XVHGDOOZHOGPHWDOWHQVLOHVSHFLPHQVWRGHWHUPLQH\LHOGVWUHQJWK <6 DQGXOWLPDWHWHQVLOH

Table 10: Automated FCAW Corner Bead Parameter

Current (A) 140

Table 11: Automated FCAW Center Bead Parameter

Current (A) 200

3.2 Reciprocating Wire Feed (RWF) FCAW Trials

3.2.1 FCAW Welding Parameter Development

Table 13: Low Heat-input Automated RWF FCAW Parameters

Current (A) 150

Table 14: High Deposition-rate Automated RWF FCAW Parameters

Current (A) 195

3.2.2 FCAW Mock Build-up Creation and Testing

Figure 25: Hardness Map of Automated RWF FCAW Build-up

Figure 26: Field-Repaired Frog

3.5 Weld Repair of Partial Frog

Figure 32: Cross Section of Repair-welded Wing

3.6 Evaluation of Partial Frog Weld Repair

Figure 37: Complete Carbon Arc Gouging

Figure 39: Frog #1 After Grinding

3.7.2 Weld Repair of Frog #1

Table 21: Test Frog Welding Parameters

3.7.2.1 Frog #1 Weld Cracking

Figure 44: Removal of Cracks from Frog #1 to Allow Repair Welding

Figure 46: Frog #1 Crack-fill Welds Ground Smooth

Figure 47: Weld Build-up to Complete Frog #1 Crack Repair

Figure 53: Layer 1 Welding of Frog #2 Transition Area

Table 22: TTCI Frog Maintenance Record

Figure 55: Point Running Surface Wear Along Length of Point

Figure 56: Running Surface Wear 32 inches Past Frog Point

Figure 59: Running Surface Wear Along Length of Wing

Figure 64: Point Running Surface Spalls

4.1 Track Testing Summary

Figure 65: Ultrasonic Testing Scan Sample

Figure 71: Horizontal Cracks Likely Due to Shear Loading (1)

Figure 73: Crack in Base Material Adjacent to Weld Fusion Line

Figure 75: Surface and Sub-surface Cracking in Point

Figure 77: Surface Spalling 32 inches from Point

(:,XVHGDOOZHOGPHWDOWHQVLOHVSHFLPHQVWRGHWHUPLQH\LHOGVWUHQJWK <6 DQGXOWLPDWHWHQVLOH