Proceedings of the 2010 Joint Rail Conference
Proceedings of the 2010 Joint Rail Conference
INSULATED RAILWAY JOINT DESIGN METHODOLOGY THROUGH PARAMETRIC
FINITE ELEMENT BASED MODELING
Chase C. Holland, Thong Q. Do,
Robert L. West, and Mehdi Ahmadian
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia, United States
ABSTRACT
The Railroad Industry experiences multiple failures with
currently used bonded insulated joint designs. These failures
have encouraged an increased effort in strength and fatigue
analysis for the joints. This paper presents a program initiated
by Virginia Tech and Transportation Technology Center
Incorporated (TTCI) to develop, analyze, and test a family of
insulated joint designs featuring non-adhesive bolted
connections. This program utilizes a hierarchical set of Finite
Element (FE) parametric models that explore the problem’s
mechanics for a family of rail joint design concepts by refining
the analysis with each subsequent model.
Currently, there is limited information concerning design
criteria for insulated joints in the Railroad industry. Therefore,
an initial task in this program is to define design criteria and
representative load cases characteristic of typical life cycles for
commercial freight rails. Design criteria are either proprietary
to the railroad or do not appear to be published in the AREMA
handbooks. However, the AREMA handbooks do define an
acceptance test for the failure of rail joint. Failure criteria were
derived from the AREMA rolling wheel acceptance test with
some modifications to the magnitude of the loads. Using these
load cases and design criteria, multiple FE models are used to
identify the dominant mechanics of the bolted joint and contact
problem. Each model features parametric relationships that
enable rapid design changes including geometric features and
mechanics. The development of hierarchical FE models
facilitates the selection of a specific model that embodies the
essential mechanics of the problem while maintaining a
geometry that allows for parametric tradeoff studies. The design
variables and baseline finite element model are used as an
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/jrc2010/72239/ on 06/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab
JRC2010
April 27-29, 2010, Urbana,JRC2010
IL, USA
April 27-29, 2010, Urbana, Illinois, USA
JRC2010-36022
JRC2010-36022
analysis tool developed as an Abaqus scripted template for
design comparison studies.
The hierarchical approach to finite element modeling with
a parametric model has been applied to the development of a
bolted insulated rail joint design, which has been realized in a
new insulated joint prototype. The mechanics explored in the
FE models can be verified using various full-scale load frame
tests in a controlled environment. Tests are standardized across
models using identical boundary conditions and load cases. The
results obtained will be used to confirm modeling assumptions
and provide necessary information for further prototype
development. The prototype of the full 3-D geometry will be
tested in track at TTCI for final design verification. The
hierarchical parametric finite element modeling approach
results in a tool that can be applied to joint design across the
rail industry.
INTRODUCTION
Currently, the “block” signaling approach is used to
determine the occupancy of a railroad track. The presence of a
train on the track completes an electrical circuit, which sends a
signal indicating occupancy. Thus, each section on the railway
must be electrically insulated from the other sections. In order
to insulate two rail sections, the connecting parts between the
two rails-the joint bars, and bolts-must be isolated from the rail.
In this study, mechanical design calculations and Finite
Element Analysis (FEA) models are used to analyze the
structural integrity of the joint assembly. These models are used
to verify the dominant mechanics present in the problem and to
develop parametric relationships in which geometric design
parameters are programmed or coded to enable rapid design
1 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 exploration. In this research, the final verification step will be
to build and test an accurate prototype of the insulated joint to
confirm learned stresses from the Finite Element models and
hand calculations.
NOMENCLATURE
σ’ von Mises equivalent stress
σ1,σ2, σ3 Principal stresses
ny Yield factor of safety
Sy Yield strength
σa Alternating stress
σm Mean stress
Se Endurance limit
SUT Ultimate tensile strength
nf Fatigue factor of safety
RESEARCH APPROACH
A design, analysis, and test structure was applied to this
design study. The insulated joint (IJ) design concepts were
broken down into families of design features, shown in Figure
1.
Figure 1. Three families of design features were evaluated.
The insulated joint bar family was selected for this study.
The double insulated sleeve family features two ceramic coated
sleeves positioned on both sides of the rail. The insulated
sleeves fit into machined holes in the joint bar and provide a
gap between the joint bar and the rail. The bolt is inserted
through the sleeve to achieve electrical isolation with the rail
and joint bar. The single insulated sleeve family features a
similar design where one ceramic coated sleeve is pressed
through a larger diameter hole in the rail. The bolt is then
inserted through the sleeve to achieve electrical isolation. The
insulated joint bar family features a smaller diameter ceramic
coated sleeve that extends through the entire rail and joint bar
cross-sections. The joint bar is isolated from the rail at the web
with a Teflon sheet. The bolt is inserted through the insulated
sleeve to maintain electrical isolation.
While the end result of this study is the analysis and
evaluation of all the design families, this paper will focus on
the development of models characteristic of the insulated joint
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/jrc2010/72239/ on 06/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab
bar family. The analysis of the insulted joint bar family was
completed through the use of hierarchical mechanical design
and finite element models. These hierarchical models allow the
designers to develop an understanding of the dominant
mechanics present in the IJ problem while adding complexity
with each subsequent model. Hand calculations were initially
completed using mechanical design methods utilizing certain
assumptions. In order to relax these assumptions and continue
exploring the complexity of the problem, a beam model was
built in Abaqus to represent the insulated joint using elastic
members. After the analysis of the beam model was complete,
a three-dimensional model using simplified “block” geometry
was constructed to further explore the problem’s sensitivity to
changes in geometry and contact between components. Finally,
an Abaqus model representing the joint’s full geometry was
analyzed to verify the results of the previous models. Figure 2
displays the assembly view for the simplified 3-D geometry and
full 3-D geometry Abaqus models.
[A] [B]  
Figure 2. [A] The Abaqus simplified 3-D geometry model;
[B] The Abaqus full 3-D geometry model.
In order to evaluate the insulated joint bar design family,
the design variables for the parametric FEA models were first
identified. For this family, the design variables include: 1) the
number of bolts and their spacing, 2) the thickness of joint bar,
3) the length of the joint bar, 4) the diameter of the bolt, and 5)
the thickness of the ceramic coated steel sleeve. In addition,
standard load cases and boundary conditions were selected to
maintain continuity between models. It was concluded from
research and discussions with Transportation Technologies
Center, Inc. (TTCI) that the AREMA (American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association) rail joint
acceptance standard test rig was an appropriate starting point to
derive the failure criteria for the evaluation of the Abaqus
models [3]. This test rig was used as the basis for the boundary
conditions and wheel load locations, and a schematic of this
apparatus is shown in Figure 3.
2 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 CENTER
OVERHUNG
LEFT RIGHT
Figure 3. The schematic of the rolling test rig from the
AREMA standards manual [3].
As shown in the figure, the joint assembly is supported at
the left end of the joint bar with a fixed simple support and at
the right end of the joint bar with a roller support. The wheel
load as specified by the standard is 44,000 lbf [3]. However,
further discussions with TTCI revealed that the vertical load
imparted from a single wheel of a modern locomotive to the
joint can be upwards of 85,000 lbf [4]. This magnitude
represents the impact of a dynamic rolling wheel by
multiplying a static wheel load by a dynamic load factor. As
shown in Figure 3, the modified vertical load of 85,000 lbf is
applied at three different load locations to represent the wheel’s
movement over the track. In Figure 3, the bolts are labeled 1
through 6. After evaluation, these points of interest can be used
as maximum and minimum wheel loading conditions for
fatigue analyses.
In order to correctly represent the bolted connection,
additional loads are added to the hand calculations and Abaqus
models. These loads include the varying temperature load
imparted on the rail by the environment and the preloads and
shrink fits associated with the bolted connection. In this design,
shrink fits are employed to maintain an overall compressive
state for the ceramic coated sleeves in order to prevent brittle
fracture. This is achieved by specifying shrink fits between the
bolts and the ceramic coated steel sleeves, as well as the sleeves
and the holes in the joint bars and rail. In order to assess the
acceptance condition for the design, three failure criteria are
defined. These criteria are (1) a maximum deflection of less
than 0.25 inches [5], (2) a minimum factor of safety in yield
greater than 1.5, and (3) a minimum factor of safety in fatigue
greater than 1.5.
PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS
In an effort to develop a systematic approach to analyze the
stresses and predict life expectancy for a railway joint, the
dominant mechanics of the joint need to be determined to
identify critical areas for design tradeoff studies. In order to
identify the dominant mechanics of the joint, traditional
mechanical design calculations were completed first. These
calculations yield initial sizing of the joint design variables for
the rail joint. The design variables include the number of bolts
and their spacing; the size, specifically the thickness and length,
of the joint bar; the diameter of the bolt; and the thickness of
the ceramic coated steel sleeve as mentioned in the previous
section of this report.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/jrc2010/72239/ on 06/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab
In order to represent the various load cases stated in the
“Research Approach” section, the following stresses were
considered in the preliminary calculations: the axial stresses in
the bolts due to bolt preload, shear and bending stresses in the
entire joint due to the train wheel load, shear and bearing
stresses in the joint bar and bolts due to rail’s day and night
thermal loading, and radial and tangential stresses in the joint
bar and bolts due to the shrink fits.
Using the computed stresses, yield and fatigue factors of
safety were determined for the joint components, and the bolt
was determined as the primary load carrying member of the
joint from these calculations. These factors of safety were
determined using Distortion-Energy theory for static yield and
the modified Goodman fracture line for fatigue. The bolt’s
factor of safety in yield was computed using the von Mises
stress and the Distortion-Energy theory. The equation for
calculating the von Mises equivalent stress in shown below,
ሺఙభ ିఙమ ሻమ ାሺఙమ ିఙయ ሻమ ାሺఙయ ିఙభ ሻమ
ߪᇱ ൌ ට (1)
ଶ
where σ' is the von Mises stress, and σ1, σ2, σ3 are the three
principal stresses [6]. The Distortion-Energy theory is
described by the equation shown below,
ௌೊ
݊௬ ൌ (2)
ఙᇱ
The factor of safety in fatigue for the bolt was computed
using the modified Goodman fracture line in which the mean
and alternating stresses in the bolt were computed using the
maximum and minimum load cases. The equation for the factor
of safety calculation is shown below,
ఙೌ ఙ೘ ଵ
൅ ൌ (3)
ௌ೐ ௌೆ೅ ௡
where σa is the alternating stress, σm is the mean stress, Se is the
endurance limit, Sut is the ultimate tensile strength, and n is the
factor of safety [6].
The factor of safety calculations are completed by the use
of spreadsheet templates that input bolt reaction forces and
assembles stress tensors that facilitate factor of safety
calculations. This allows for the rapid analysis of dominant
stresses and the exploration of the various designs.
In order to solve these stresses using standard mechanical
design methods, certain assumptions are made. These
assumptions are that the primary and normalized secondary
shears are uniform. This approach implies that the members
are rigid. Therefore, the rail sections and joint bars are not able
to deform as the different load cases are applied. Because of
the relative size of the joint and the boundary conditions, this
assumption inflates the shear forces in the bolted connection
and therefore increases the stresses seen in the bolt. This
3 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 solution to the problem provides an initial understanding of the
contribution of the various loads on the joint, the scale of the
problem, and allows for initial sizing of the design variables
relating to the bolt. In addition, the spreadsheets developed
will be used later for post-processing of the Abaqus models’
results.
COUPLED BEAM MODEL
In order to address the rigid member assumption associated
with traditional mechanical design calculations, an Abaqus two
dimensional elastic beam model was built. The purpose of this
model was to remove the limitations caused by the rigid
members. In this model, the joint bar and rail sections are
modeled as elastic beam members. These members are defined
by their section and material properties. These sections were
defined using rectangular cross sections and moments of inertia
equivalent to that of 136RE rail and the proposed insulated
joint design’s joint bar. The cross-sectional dimensions and
properties of the coupled beam model’s rail and joint bar
sections are found in Table 1.
Table 1. Dimensions and section properties for the coupled
beam model.
Young's
Section Base, Height, Length, Modulus,
Inch Inch Inch ksi
Rail 2.00 7.31 60.00 30000
Joint
Bar 2.00 4.54 42.00 30000
Because the joint bar and rail will deflect as the joint is loaded
due to the elasticity of these members, the inflation of the
reacting forces at the bolted connection will be reduced.
The two dimensional Abaqus beam model utilized the
"beam" type element with previously specified section and
material properties. The material selected for this model is
standard steel with an elastic modulus of 30,000 ksi and a
Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. Because of the limitations of a two-
dimensional model, the bolt was not modeled as an additional
beam element. Instead, the bolts are represented by coupling
constraints between the joint bar and rail section. Coupling
constraints tie the joint bar and rail together in the horizontal
and vertical directions at nodes located at the bolt locations.
Therefore, the coupling constraints represent the bolts as rigid
connections between the joint bar and rail sections. In addition,
the beam model is not capable of representing the contact
present between the joint bar and rail in the real geometry.
The beam model utilized the AREMA standard boundary
and loading conditions for a railway joint shown in Figure 3.
Because the beam model did not represent the bolts explicitly,
preload, and shrink fits could not be represented in the model.
The beam model was meshed with simple meshing, and did not
require additional elements for convergence. The reacting
forces or primary shear on the bolts were found by querying the
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/jrc2010/72239/ on 06/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab
internal forces at the coupled locations. These forces were
found to be much less than the traditional mechanical design
calculation predictions. Table 2 shows the resulting primary
shear stresses for the center wheel load and the overhung right
wheel load at the six bolt locations.
Table 2. Internal forces at the coupled nodes for the center
wheel load and the overhung right wheel load.
Coupled Beam Primary Shears (lbf)
Loading Center Overhung Right
Condition Load Load
Bolt 1 -1504 1831
Bolt 2 -44804 15927
Bolt 3 46308 -7134
Bolt 4 46308 -16793
Bolt 5 -44804 -15887
Bolt 6 -1504 22055
The post-processing spreadsheets that were developed during
the initial calculations can again be used to calculate the factors
of safety for the joint in both yield and fatigue by inputting the
transverse shear forces from Abaqus. In addition, the joint’s
vertical deflection was examined in Abaqus to determine its
adherence to the displacement failure criteria.
The results of the beam model analysis showed that the
maximum vertical deflection was 0.03 inches, which meets the
vertical deflection failure criteria. It was found that the center
loading condition yields the highest loads in the negative
(downward) vertical direction and the overhung right condition
yields the highest loads in the positive (upward) vertical
direction. These load cases became the maximum and
minimum load cases for the fatigue analysis of the joint. Using
the post-processing spreadsheets, the minimum factor of safety
in fatigue was 0.2 for the bolt. The von Mises stress output
from Abaqus was used in addition to the yield strength of the
design material to calculate the static yield factor of safety for
the bolt. The calculated minimum factor of safety in yield was
0.5. These results suggest that the beam model is still
constrained by the rigid member assumption in the coupled
connection. In addition, the beam model helped define fatigue
load cases for continued analysis of the joint by identifying the
maximum and minimum load cases from the three AREMA
vertical wheel load cases.
SIMPLIFIED 3-D GEOMETRY MODEL
In order to verify the results of the beam model, a second
FEA model was built in Abaqus using three-dimensional
continuum elements. The purpose of this model is to maintain
a parametric relationship based on design variables that can
eventually be coded or programmed to update the model as the
design variables are changed by the user. Once again, the
design parameters include: 1) the number of bolts and their
spacing, 2) the thickness of joint bar, 3) length, of the joint bar,
4 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 4) the diameter of the bolt; and 5) the thickness of the ceramic
coated steel sleeve. However, this model is only useful as a tool
if it fully represents the mechanics of the problem. This
simplified 3-D model represents the joint bars, rail sections,
ceramic coated steel sleeves, and bolts parametrically using
three-dimensional simplified “block” geometry. The simplified
3-D geometry model allows the bolted connection to be
represented by elastic members instead of rigid coupling
constraints. In addition, this model incorporates the ceramic
coated steel sleeves into the model assembly for the first time.
Finally, the joint is modeled as a system, with the wheel load
being applied through contact between a rigid axle and the
elastic wheel. The load is then transferred into the rail through
contact with the wheel. The simplified geometry used in the
model features identical cross sectional properties to the
representative beams in the beam model. Therefore, the major
differences in the two models are the systems approach for
transferring the load to the joint, the addition of elastic bolts
and ceramic coated steel sleeves, and the resulting contact
between parts in the assembly.
This model utilizes the boundary conditions specified in
the AREMA handbook, with a roller support at the right end of
the joint bar and a simple support at the left end of the joint bar.
These boundary conditions are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Assembly view of the simplified 3-D geometry
model in Abaqus with boundary conditions labeled.
In addition, the simplified 3-D geometry model is also
subjected to the three wheel load cases of 85,000 lbs magnitude
shown in Figure 3. A temperature load is applied to the rail to
represent the environment’s thermal cycle from night to day,
and preloads and shrink fits are added to the bolted connection
through the use of temperature gradients.
The simplified geometry uses the same material that was
used in the beam model, but a thermal expansion coefficient of
6.45 x 10-6 1/ ̊C was added to the material definition for the use
of thermal loads. These design constraints are important factors
in the overall strength analysis and design of the joint.
However, this is the first model with geometry capable of
representing these loads. This model also represents the
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/jrc2010/72239/ on 06/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab
frictional contact between components in the insulated joint’s
assembly. The contact properties utilize in the simplified 3-D
geometry model are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Contact properties for the simplified 3-D geometry
model.
Contact Properties
Tangential Behavior
Friction Formulation Penalty
Directionality Isotropic
Friction Coefficient 0.05
Shear Stress Limit No Limit
Normal Behavior
Constraint Enforcement Method Penalty
Allow separation after contact Yes
Contact stiffness behavior Linear
This contact includes the contact between the joint bars and
rails; the interference between the ceramic coated steel sleeves,
bolts, joint bars, and rails; the contact between the rigid axle
and the wheel; and the contact between the wheel and the rail.
In order to mesh the three-dimensional geometry
effectively, the geometry was partitioned around the bolt holes
in the rail and joint bar to facilitate structured meshing with
hexahedral elements. While partitioning the solid initially
appears time consuming, it allows for parametric seeding of the
mesh for more effective mesh refinement and usually
significantly lowers runtimes, which enables design
exploration. In addition, partitioning sets the model up for
script coding enabling rapid design iterations. The Abaqus
C3D8 element was selected for the meshing of the simplified 3-
D geometry model. This element is an eight-noded linear brick
featuring incompatible modes. Incompatible modes are used
because the joint is primarily in bending, providing for internal
curvature degrees of freedom in the bending direction. After
mesh refinement, the model converged on a solution at the
critical section for yield with around 115,558 elements. As
expected from the hand calculations and beam model, the
critical sections for yield were located on the outer fibers of
bolts 1 and 6 as labeled in Figure 3. This critical section is
shown in Figure 5. However, the critical section for fatigue
was located at the outer fiber of bolts 3 and 4. This is attributed
to the larger deflections seen in that area. The model also
featured local critical sections for the joint bars and rails at their
bolt holes for bolts 1 and 6.
5 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 Using this material property, the FE model yielded results
nearly identical to the beam model. The results from the
simplified 3-D geometry model demonstrate that the elasticity
of the bolts in the bolted joint is a very important contributor to
the mechanics of the insulated joint in the FE model.
When the factors of safety for the simplified 3-D geometry
model are evaluated, they fail to have a factor of safety greater
than 1.5. However, the simplified 3-D geometry model does
not fully represent the geometry of the actual joint. The
simplified 3-D geometry model features a moment of inertia
equivalent to that of the actual insulated joint, but fails to model
the increased contact seen in the joint bar design between the
Figure 5. Von Mises stress for bolt number 1 displaying the
critical section at the top fiber of the pin.
joint bar and the rail. It is possible that this limitation prevents
the geometry of the joint bar from carrying additional load
Once the model was converged, post processing of the through contact with the rail.
results could be completed. First, the vertical deflection of the
joint was evaluated for the three wheel load cases. The FULL 3-D GEOMETRY MODEL
deflections for these load cases were -0.1286, -0.1665, and As stated in the previous section, it is expected that part of
0.0505 inches for the left, center, and overhung right load cases. the load transferred though the locomotive wheel to the rail is
These deflections meet the failure criteria by being less than the carried by the contact between the joint bar and the rail. The
maximum vertical deflection of 0.25 inches. joint bar is designed to fit into the web of the rail and maintain
In order to calculate the desired factors of safety, the contact. This geometry can be seen in Figure 6.
principal stresses were queried in Abaqus for the maximum and
minimum load cases. These load cases correspond to the
overhung right and center load cases as illustrated in Figure 3.
The center load case is used for the evaluation of the yield
criteria because it produces the stresses with the highest
magnitude. In order to calculate the factor of safety in yield,
the principal stresses from the center load case are used to
calculate an equivalent von Mises stress using Distortion-
Energy theory. The factor of safety for ductile yield is
calculated using Distortion-Energy theory as implemented in
Equation 2. The final post-processing was completed in the
spreadsheet. The principal stresses for the maximum and
minimum load cases are used to calculate mean and alternating
von Mises stresses by first calculating mean and alternating
principal stresses, and then using Equation 1 to calculate the
equivalent von Mises mean and alternating stresses for the load
cases. These equivalent stresses are used in Equation 3 to
calculate the fatigue factor of safety using modified Goodman
Figure 6. Assembly view of the insulated joint full 3-D
fracture line. This factor of safety calculations was also added geometry Abaqus model.
to the post-processing spreadsheets for future use. Using the
von Mises equivalent stress, the calculated factor of safety in In order to investigate this theory, a full representation of the
yield was 1.3 for bolts 1 and 6, and the factor of safety in insulated joint’s geometry was used to build the final FE model
fatigue was 0.796 for bolts 3 and 4. in Abaqus. The geometry was defined using published cross
The deflections predicted in the simplified 3-D geometry sections of industry standard 136 RE rails [3]. This model
model are considerably higher than the deflections predicted in allows designers to evaluate the effects of the geometry on the
the beam model. However, the stresses predicted in the rail and load carrying capacity of the joint. Initially, the full geometry
joint bar members are considerably lower in the simplified 3-D rail joint was treated as a half model due to the assumption of
geometry model compared to the beam model. This is symmetric boundary conditions about the center plane of the
attributed to the addition of elastic bolts in the simplified 3-D rail joint while also applying elastic foundations to simulate the
geometry model. In order to confirm the effect of the elastic effects of rail road ties as shown in Figure 7.
bolt on the shear distribution, the elastic modulus of the bolts
was set at a very high value to obtain a virtually rigid bolt.

6 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/jrc2010/72239/ on 06/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab

 Figure 7. Assembly view of the half model representation
of the full 3-D geometry.
By modeling the insulated joint as a half model, it is assumed
that the boundary conditions, loading, geometry, and materials
are symmetric with respect to the cutting plane. This allows the
user to analyze more complicated models with smaller run
times due to the decreased number of elements. However,
adoption of the AREMA standard lead to boundary conditions
and wheel load cases for the hierarchical set of models that are
no longer symmetric.
The full 3-D geometry model features identical boundary
conditions and load cases as the simplified 3-D geometry
model. This includes the simple and roller supports at the ends
of the joint bar, the three wheel load cases, the cyclic thermal
rail load, the preload on the bolts, and the shrink fits for the
bolts and ceramic coated steel sleeves. The material properties
are also the same as those applied to the simplified 3-D
geometry model. In addition to the changes in geometric
modeling of the rail and the joint bar, the wheel has been
modeled using the correct dimensions and cross section
provided by the AREMA handbook [3]. These wheel geometry
changes will modify the contact between the rail and the wheel
which will affect the transfer of the wheel load through the
joint. The contacts between the joint’s components are
consistent with the simplified 3-D geometry model with normal
and tangential behavior as defined in Table 3.
Because of its complex geometry, the full 3-D geometry
model was much more difficult to mesh effectively than the
simplified 3-D geometry model. The joint bars and rail
sections were partitioned through the cross section and around
the bolt holes to facilitate a structured mesh with hexahedral
elements. The bolts and ceramic coated steel sleeves were also
partitioned through their cross sections to allow for a structured
mesh. The locomotive wheel was meshed with hexahedral
elements using the Abaqus sweep control with minimal
partitioning due to its axi-symmetric geometry. Figure 8 shows
the meshed assembly for the first mesh of the full 3-D geometry
model.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/jrc2010/72239/ on 06/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab
Figure 8. Initial mesh for the full 3-D geometry Abaqus
model.
The full 3-D geometry model was meshed using the C3D8
eight noded brick elements featuring incompatible modes
previously used for the simplified 3-D geometry model. A
considerable effort was made to avoid free meshing this model
with tetrahedral elements. Structure meshing is advantageous
because it reduces the number of elements necessary for
convergence, and this model is not used for a “one time shot”
analysis. Rather, this model will serve as a basis for the final
verification step for a family of insulated joint designs.
The purpose of this research is to create a parametric
model of the insulated joint that can be used as a template for
design tradeoff studies. It was quickly apparent that higher
processing capacity was necessary to run the increasingly larger
models. Productive exploration of design changes for the full
3-D geometry model will still require “long” run time even on a
large scale computational server. The models developed in this
study will serve as templates and will be scripted based on the
primary design variables that have been previously specified.
In order to make this parametric template possible, certain
simplifications must be made to the geometry. Because of its
complex nature, it is impractical to parameterize the full 3-D
geometry to be used as a template. Therefore, it is essential that
a refined simplified 3-D model be created that represents all of
the mechanics and the dominant geometric features of the
actual problem. The full 3-D geometry model will be used as a
final verification for the simplified 3-D model.
The initial results of the original full 3-D geometry half
model and coarse mesh results for the full 3-D geometry model
suggest that the geometry of the joint bar and its contact with
the rail can be utilized to carry a substantial portion of the load
transferred through the joint. Figure 9 shows a deformed plot
of the von Mises stress distribution for the full 3-D geometry
half model.
7 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Figure 9. von Mises stress distribution for the full 3-D
geometry half model built in Abaqus.
The von Mises contour plot illustrates an increase in stress at
the upper and lower edges of the joint bar where contact is
made with the rail. There is also a very high localized stress at
the upper corner of the joint bar where it contacts the rail. It is
believed that this critical point is a singularity caused by the
meshing of the joint bar. The bolts are still considered the
critical section for the joint, but these areas of increased stress
in the joint bar support the idea that the joint bar carries a
portion of the wheel load. The von Mises plot from the original
mesh of the full 3-D geometry model shows similar results to
those shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Von Mises stress distribution for the full 3-D
geometry model.
A view cut was used in Figure 10 to display the stress
distribution in the cross section of the joint bars and rail
section. In this plot, the highest stresses are found localized at
the contact between the rail and the wheel. Similarly to the half
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/jrc2010/72239/ on 06/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab
model, these stresses are attributed to a singularity in the
contact caused by meshing. However, this plot also confirms
the areas of high stress located at the upper and lower edges of
the joint bar. These observations motivate revisions to the
simplified 3-D geometry model because it is shown that the
webbing contour surfaces between the rail and joint bar carry a
significant amount of the distributed loads. This model
demonstrates that the current simplified 3-D geometry model
does not correctly represent the contact mechanics between the
joint bar and the web of the rail in the insulated joint.
Therefore the simplified 3-D geometry model will be
redesigned to support increased contact between the joint bar
and the rail. After verification, the revised simplified 3-D
geometry model will be used as the parametric model that will
facilitate design tradeoff studies through Abaqus scripting.
REVISED SIMPLIFIED 3-D GEOMETRY MODEL
Work is currently under way in the development of a
revised simplified 3-D geometry model. While the full
geometry model represents dimensions identical to a real life
rail, this model’s runtime for a single finite element analysis
requires more than 12 hours to complete. The purpose of the
revised simplified geometry model is to reduce the analysis
runtime to a practical range while maintaining the mechanics of
the full geometry model. This revised model features simple
block geometries that attempts to capture the mechanics and
contact of the full 3-D geometry model while maintaining
parametric relationships branching from the design variables.
Specifically, this model features increased contact between the
joint bar and the rail. Its joint bar and rail cross sectional
geometries are determined using squared off representations of
the full 3-D geometry, equivalent contact area between the joint
bar and the rail, and moments of inertia equivalent to that of the
real joint. Figure 11 shows the proposed geometry for the
revised simplified 3-D geometry parametric model.
Figure 11. Cross sectional and isometric geometry view of
the proposed parametric model.
The simple block geometry's purpose is to maintain ease of
parameterization and meshing for design studies. Once verified
by the full 3-D geometry model’s results, this model will serve
as the basis for the FEA template that will be used for joint
sizing and tradeoff studies. Abaqus’ scripting interface is used
to develop constrained part sketches that can later be opened
and modified using user prompts. These constrained sketches
serve as the framework for the IJ design template that will be
used for future design studies. The revised simplified 3-D
8 Copyright © 2010 by ASME
 geometry model template will enable users to modify insulated Revenue_Service_Evaluation_Of_Advanced_Design_20
joint design constraints easily and provide expedited results. 08.pdf
[5] Akhtar, M.N., D.D.Davis, “Preliminary Results of
Abaqus’ scripting interface uses Python, a dynamic
Prototype Insulated Joint Tests”, FAST, Technology
programming language that includes engineering and scientific
Digest Timely Technology Transfer, TD-07-013,
extensions including plotting and visualization. The end result
Transportation Technology Center, Inc., 2007.
from the development of this model is a bolted insulated joint
[6] Shigley, J.E., Mischke, C.R., Budynas, R.G., 2004,
FEA program that builds FE models of joint assemblies using
Mechanical Engineering Design, Seventh Edition,
user inputs while maintaining relational constraints in meshing,
McGraw-Hill, Ch.7
boundary conditions, contact interactions, analysis steps, and
load cases. The template is designed to support sensitivity
analysis, design parametric studies, and post-processing of
results against design criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
The design criteria and variables have been defined for IJ
analysis, and the dominant mechanics have been determined by
developing a hierarchical set of models. These models illustrate
the importance of elasticity in the bolted connections. It was
found that the contact between the joint bar and rail largely
affects the load carrying ability of the joint. FEM of the system
provides the opportunity to develop the representative
distribution of loads for the joint’s components. However, this
approach needs to be verified with test data for each of our
hierarchical models.
The development of these models allow designers to
improve the life expectancy of insulated rail joints. The
research completed to date has defined a system of analysis for
the proposed IJs. This analysis will conclude with the testing of
the joint models to validate the finite element results and an
operational parametric design/FEA scripted template that will
enable tradeoff studies and optimization.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Association of
American Railroads and its technical center, Transportation
Technology Center, Inc., for supporting this project. Special
thanks are due to Mr. Dave Davis for serving as Technical
Monitor for the AAR-affiliated program at the Railway
technologies Laboratory (RTL) of Virginia Tech.

REFERENCES
[1] Allen, C.J., 1973, “Modern Railways: Their Engineering,
Equipment and Operation”. Greenwood Press,
Publishers, Westport, CT.
[2] Charlton, Zachary I., 2007, “Innovative Design Concepts
for Insulated Rail Joints”, M.S. Thesis, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA.
[3] AREMA , 2000, Manual for Railway Engineering ,
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way
Association, Landover, MD, Vol. 1, Chapter 4
[4] Akhtar, M.N., D.D.Davis, O’Connor, T., 2009, “Revenue
Service Evaluation of Advanced Design Insulated
Joints”, http:// www.arema.org/ eseries/scriptcontent/
custom/e_arema/library/2008_Conference_Proceedings/

9 Copyright © 2010 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/jrc2010/72239/ on 06/02/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/ab