INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.

129-135 JANUARY 2013 / 129

DOI: 10.1007/s12541-013-0018-x

Structural Behavior Evaluation of T-joints of the Composite

Bogie Frame Under Bending
Woo Geun Lee1, Jung Seok Kim2,#, Hyuk Jin Yoon2, Kwang Bok Shin3, and Sung Il Seo2
1 Railway System Engineering, University of Science & Technology, 217 Gajungro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, South Korea, 305-350
2 New Transportation Systems Research Center, Korea Railroad Research Institute, 176 Cheoldo bangmulgwan-ro, Uiwang-shi, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea, 437-757
3 Mechanical Design Engineering, Division of Mechanical Engineering, Hanbat National University, San 16-1, Dukmyung-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejon, South Korea, 305-719
# Corresponding Author / E-mail: jskim@krri.re.kr, TEL: +82-31-460-5663, FAX: +82-31-460-5037

KEYWORDS: Composites, Bogie, Joint, Finite element, Strength, Failure

This study evaluates the failure strength and failure modes of two types of T-joint used in a composite bogie frame under a bending
load. The average failure load and displacement of the adhesive-only joint were 4.1 kN and 0.99 mm. The cracks propagated through
the bond layer and followed a mode I propagation mode. In contrast, the joint with the adhesive bonding and skin had an average
failure load of 68 kN and a displacement of 8.1 mm. It also showed a mode I propagation trend. The strain distribution for the whole
region of the two joints was evaluated with FE analysis. A comparison of experiment results and the FE analysis results revealed that
the error was in range of 5.33% - 42.6% for the adhesive-only joint and 1.07% and 17.3% for the joint with the adhesive bonding
and skin. The maximum stress concentration locations showed good agreement between the experiment and FE analysis.

Manuscript received: June 8, 2012 / Accepted: September 17, 2012

1. Introduction approximately 25%, enabling minimization of power capacity, energy

Composite materials have been used in a wide range of applications
in structural design for their superior mechanical properties over
conventional materials. For example, in the aerospace industry,
structures are usually built from materials with high strength and
stiffness to weight ratios, and composite materials often fulfill these
characteristics adequately. Although composite materials have certain
advantages over the conventional materials, they also have some
disadvantages. The main disadvantages are their anisotropic material
properties, nonlinear behavior, complicated failure modes and high
manufacturing costs. In spite of these shortcomings, composite
materials have considerable potential for use in the railway field.1,2 The
bogie of a railway vehicle sustains the weight of the car body, controls
the wheel sets on straight and curved tracks, and absorbs the
vibrations.3 Such bogie frames are rigid and heavy, weighing from 1 to
2 tons. They have to be equipped with suspension and damping
systems to safeguard the comfort of passengers and to absorb
vibrations due to the unevenness of the railway track on which the
vehicles run. There have been few attempts to develop bogie frames
using composite materials. Geuenich and Leo, et al.4-6 built the world’s
first bogie frame made of glass fiber reinforced plastics (GFRP). They
targeted the bogie frame of a passenger train. The use of composite
elements for the frames of the bogies yielded a weight reduction of
consumption, and wear. Maurin et al.7 assessed the mechanical reliability
of the side beam of a composite-based bogie frame using an FBG sensor.
The GFRP composite bogie frame is usually composed of two side
beams and two cross beams and has a double H shape. The joint
regions between the side beams and the cross beams are critical areas
so that their failure characteristics have to be considered in detail.
In this study, the failure strength and behavior for the joint region
under bending load was evaluated using experiment and FE analysis.
2. Composite bogie frame and joint
2.1 Composite bogie frame
The GFRP composite bogie frame has two side beams and two
cross beams and is 2,540 mm long and 2,325 mm wide as shown in
Fig. 1. The final shape was built by assembling two side beams and two
cross beams; first, two cross beams and two side beams were
adhesively bonded to each other. Then, GEP224 glass/epoxy prepregs
were laid up on the surface of the assembled structure to form the skin.
The joint regions formed by connecting the side beams and cross
beams are one of the most critical areas. The joint has the shape of a
T, so we call it a T-joint. To take into account the failure characteristics
of the joint in detail, two types of T-joints were fabricated and tested.

© KSPE and Springer 2013

 130 / JANUARY 2013
Fig. 1 Composite bogie frame and T-joints: (a) adhesive-only joint, (b)
joint with the adhesive and skin
Fig. 2 Manufacturing process for the T-joints: (a) cross beam part lay-
up, (b) vacuum-packing, (c) side beam bonding with cross beam, (d)
putting strain gauges on the joint with the adhesive and skin
The first one was a T-joint in which the cross beam and side beam were
connected using only an adhesive bonding method (Fig. 1(a)). The
second one was a T-joint in which the cross beam and side beam were
assembled using adhesive bonding and a skin (Fig. 1(b)).
To fabricate the adhesive-only T-joint specimens, a steel mould with
cross sectional dimensions of 140 mmx-140 mm was manufactured.
Then, the GEP224 glass/epoxy prepregs were laid up to the target
thickness of 15 mm on the mould (Fig. 2(a)). After the lay-up, it was
sealed and pressured using a vacuum bag (Fig. 2(b)) and then it was
cured in an autoclave. After the curing, a hollow GFRP rectangular
tube was made and cut appropriately. Finally, it was bonded with a side
beam part made of the same prepreg using EPIKOTETM MGS BPR
135G epoxy resin (Hexion, Germany).
To make the joints with the adhesive bonding and skin, two
tubes of the same size with inner cross sectional dimensions of
140 mm × 140 mm and a thickness of 15 mm were manufactured
and bonded to each other using EPIKOTETM MGS BPR 135G
epoxy resin (Fig. 2(c)). Then, the GEP224 glass/epoxy prepregs
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 14, No. 1
Fig. 3 Test setup for the T-joint bending test: (a) adhesive-only joint,
(b) joint with the adhesive and skin
Fig. 4 Locations of strain gauges: (a) adhesive-only joint, (b) joint with
the adhesive and skin
were laid up on the assembled part to a target thickness of 15 mm
as shown in Fig. 2(d).
2.2 Test setup
In this study, the failure strength and behavior for the joint
region was evaluated under a bending load. To apply the bending
load to the exact loading point of the T-joints, a steel beam was
fastened with the T-joint using bolts as shown in Fig. 3. The T-joints
were fixed on the fixing jig using mechanical fastening. To apply
the bending load a 5-ton capacity hydraulic actuator (MTS, USA)
for the adhesive-only joint and a 25-ton capacity hydraulic actuator
(MTS, USA) for the joint with the adhesive bonding and skin were
used. The deflection at the end of the T-joint was measured using
a LVDT (Tokyo Sokki, Japan), which was located in the bottom of
the joint. The loading rate of the test was 0.5 mm/sec.
Fig. 4 shows locations of the strain gauges bonded on the two types
of joints. A total of 11 gauges (TML, Japan) were used. Four single
gauges symbolized by S and seven biaxial gauges symbolized by C.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 14, No. 1 JANUARY 2013 / 131

Fig. 5 Load-displacement curve and crack propagation process.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Adhesive-only joint

Fig. 5 presents the load-displacement curves and crack propagation
process of the adhesive-only joint. The load-displacement response is
a single representative response of the two tests. The failure load was
4.44 kN and displacement prior to major crack propagation was
1.06 mm. The average failure load and displacement was 4.1 kN and
0.99 mm. The load-displacement curve increased linearly and the load
abruptly dropped after initial crack propagation (point ①). White paint
was smeared on the adhesive part to check the crack propagation
precisely. The initial crack formed through the width direction of the
upper bond region section (Fig. 5 (a)) and then was propagated along
the side of the joint (Fig. 5(b) - (c)). The propagation direction of the
initial crack was 45 degrees from the x-axis (as shown in Fig. 5(a))
because that direction was normal to the direction of the maximum
principal stress. After the passage of the round region, the crack
propagated along the x-axis.
The crack followed a typical mode I crack propagation behavior
including stick-slip due to the normal force induced by the bending
load (point ① → point ③). Four bi-axial strain gauges (C21, C22, C23,
C24) were installed on the potential crack propagation path and some
of them failed before the maximum load.
Figs. 6(a), (b) and (c) show the load-strain curves of the bond area
and glass/epoxy composite part. The maximum tensile strain occurred
at the gauge C21 located at center of the upper bond region where the
initial crack formed. The maximum values in y-direction and x-
direction were 3783.3 µε and 1289.8 µε. The strain gauges bonded on
the crack propagation path failed before the maximum load (C22) or
broke at the maximum load (C21 and C23). The strain data of the strain
gauges installed on the bottom bond area (C26 and C27) showed a
Fig. 6 Load-strain curves of the adhesive-only joint
similar trend as the load-displacement curve since such the gauges
were free from damage.
In the strain gauges bonded on the glass/epoxy composite part, the
maximum tensile strain occurred at the gauge S11 located at the top
center of the composite tube and the maximum value in y-direction and
x-direction was 1001.7 µε.
After the bending tests, the fractured surfaces were inspected by
visual inspection and microscope. Inspection of the fractured surface
confirmed that interfacial failure was dominant in specimen 1 (Fig.
7(a)), while delamination failure occurred on the top layer of the side
beam part in specimen 2 (Fig. 7(c)). The initial crack of specimen 1
was observed at the corner region of the adhesive bond layer on the top
section under tensile bending load and then cracks extended rapidly
into other regions (Fig. 7(b)). However, the initial crack of specimen 2
was observed over the entire top section of the adhesive bond layer
(Fig. 7(d)). Such difference of two specimens is caused by some
 132 / JANUARY 2013 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 14, No. 1

Fig. 7 Fractured surface of adhesive-only joint: (a)-(b) specimen 1, (c)-(d) Fig. 9 Load-displacement curve of the joint with adhesive bonding and
specimen 2 skin

Fig. 10 Crack propagation process of the joint with adhesive bonding

Fig. 8 Distribution of the normal stress of the top layer of the side
and skin
beam part

reasons; surface condition, void distribution and bonding thickness

uniformity. Those specimens were hand-made so it was hard to keep
their consistency. Based on the FE analysis result, the normal stress on
the interface between the adhesive and the top layer of the side beam
part was 35.5% lower than the delamination strength (= 37.08 MPa3) as
shown in Fig. 8.

3.2 Joint with the adhesive bonding and skin

Fig. 9 presents the load-displacement curves of the joint. The load-
displacement response is a single representative response of the two
tests. In this case, the failure load was 72.3 kN and maximum
displacement before final failure was 8.48 mm. The average failure
load and displacement was 68 kN and 8.1 mm. From the test result, it
was clear that the joint with the adhesive bonding and skin had a safety
margin of 2.86 taking into account a traction load of 23.8 kN per
joining region. The load-displacement curves showed small load drops
at 24.7 kN and 27.6 kN, respectively. It was supposed that some cracks
were created in the adhesive region between the side beam and the
cross beam. At such load levels, not only no surface cracks were found
on the skin but also some noise made by crack propagation was
detected. After the load drops, the curves increased nonlinearly and
some small load drops occurred prior to the final failure.
From the test results, even though the contribution of the adhesive
region to the strength of the joint with adhesive and skin was very slight,
the adhesive failure increased the vertical deformation of the joint.
The initial crack was created at the top corner region and grew to the center
of the top section and then propagated along the side of the joint (Fig. 10).
Fig. 11 Load-strain curves of the joint with adhesive bonding and skin
Fig. 11 shows the load-strain curve of the joint. In the y-direction,
the maximum tensile strain occurred at gauge C22 located at the corner
of the top region where the initial crack was formed, and the maximum
value was 5189.3 µε.
Unfortunately, the gauge failed at the strain value due to crack
propagation. In this test, three strain gauges (C21, C22, C23) failed
before the maximum load. In the strain data, the load drops due to
bonding failure were more clearly observed than the load-displacement
curve as shown in Fig 11. The maximum compressive strain occurred
at gauge C26 located at the corner of the bottom region and the
maximum value was -8217.6 µε.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 14, No. 1 JANUARY 2013 / 133

Table 1 Strain values comparison of tests and FE analysis results for the adhesive-only joint
Test1 Test2 Average strain
Gauge Name FE (µε) Error (%)
Strain (µε) Status of gauge Strain (µε) Status of gauge (µε)
C21 3607.8 2033.5 Failure before max. load 3800 No failure 3800.0 5.33
C22 5222 2192.6 Failure before max. load 2738.6 Failure before max. load - -
C26 -2317.2 -3104 No failure -2343.1 No failure -2723.6 17.5
C27 -1944.5 -3061 No failure -2485 No failure -2773.0 42.6
S12 764 412.7 Failure before max. load 971.6 No failure 971.6 27.2

Table 2 Material properties of the GEP224 and adhesive

Property Adhesive (MPa) GEP224 (MPa)
E1 34420
E2 4560 13190
E3 6730
γ 0.32 0.24
G12 7050

Table 3 Information of FE models

Model information Adhesive-only joint Adhesive bonding and skin
Element type C3D8R CQUAD4 & CTRIA3
Number of element 85,890 6,408 Fig. 12 The FEM modeling of the adhesive-only joint
Number of node 108,099 6,501

3.3 Comparison of test and FE results

This study made a static analysis for the adhesive-only joint and the
joint with the adhesive bonding and skin. Table 2 and Table 3 list the
material properties of the GEP224 and adhesive, and the information of
FE models, respectively. The analysis model consisted of a steel beam,
a composite joint part including the bonding part, a fixing jig and bolts
to fasten the composite part with the steel beam and fixing jig (Fig. 12).
For realistic modeling of the adhesive part, 3D solid elements were
Fig. 13 Deformed shape (a) εθθ strain distribution in the adhesive-only
used as shown in Fig. 12. By the symmetric geometry, only a half
joint (b)
model was modeled.
Surface-to-surface contact constraints were imposed on the
contact areas: composite part and fixing jig, composite part and
fastening bolts, and composite part and steel beam. A friction
coefficient of 0.2 was applied to all of the contact areas. The average
maximum failure bending load of 4.1 kN was applied to the end of
the steel beam.
Fig. 13(a) shows the deformed shape of the adhesive-only joint.
From the FE results, the maximum displacement was 0.958 mm and
with an error of 3.86%. The measured strains from the strain gauges
placed on the adhesive surface in the direction of θ (εθθ) and
installed on the composite part (ε11) were compared with the FE
results as reported in Table 1. For the comparison, four-gauge data
bonded on the adhesive part and one-gauge data bonded on the
Fig. 14 The FEM modeling of the joint with the adhesive bonding and
composite part were taken into account. Three gauges of the first test
skin
specimen failed before the bending load reached the maximum
value, while only one gauge broke in the second specimen. The FE errors between the FE and the tests results were in range of 5.33% -
results showed a maximum tensile εθθ strain of the bond part of 42.6%. Fig. 13 represents the εθθ strain distribution in the bond
5222 µε but, the maximum experimental value was not measured part. The maximum strain occurred at a third of the half width from
due to the failure of the gauges. Except for the failed gauges, the the end.
 134 / JANUARY 2013
Table 4 Strain values comparison of tests and FE analysis results for the joint with the adhesive bonding and skin
Test1
Gauge Name FE (µε)
Strain (µε) Status of gauge
C21 3132.9 3099.5 No failure
C22 7463.0 7788.3 No failure
C26 -7480.0 -8111.2 No failure
C27 -3132.9 -3960.0 No failure
Fig. 15 Strain and stress vector distribution of the joint with the
adhesive and skin: (a) εθθ strain distribution, (b) max. principal stress
distribution, (c) max. principal stress vector and crack paths
Fig. 14 presents the finite element modeling for the joint with the
adhesive and skin. In this model, the joint with the adhesive and skin
was modeled using 3D shell elements. In this case, the steel beam was
modeled using 3D beam elements and it was connected with the
composite part by means of the multi-point constraints as shown in Fig.
14. In addition, the bolts and contact constraints were not included.
An average maximum failure bending load of 68 kN was applied to
the end of the steel beam. The FE results demonstrated a maximum
displacement of 8.48 mm and an error of 4.48%. The εθθ and ε11 strain
values obtained from the FE analysis were compared with the two test
results as shown in Table 4. In the comparison, four-gauge data bonded
on the round part were taken into account. Two gauges (C21 and C22)
of the second test specimen failed before the bending load reached the
maximum value. The FE analysis revealed a maximum tensile and
compressive eqq strain of the round part of 7463 µε and -7480 µε,
respectively. In the experiment, the maximum values of the first
specimen were 7788.3 µε and -8111.2 µε. Except for the failed gauges,
the errors between the FE and the tests results were in a range of 1.07%
and 17.3%.
Fig. 15(a) presents the εθθ strain distribution on the top region. The
maximum εθθ strain occurred at both ends of the top region and was
14390 µε. It was nearly twice the measured strain value. Since there
was high strain gradient attributed to high stress concentration as
shown in Fig. 15(a), the strain difference between the maximum point
and its vicinity was really great. Fig. 15(b) presents the maximum
principal stress distribution. The maximum principal stress occurred
at the same location as where the εθθ strain was maximum.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 14, No. 1
Test2 Average
Error (%)
Strain (µε) Status of gauge strain (µε)
2590.2 Failure before max. load 3099.5 1.07
5189.3 Failure before max. load 7788.3 4.36
-8217.6 No failure -8164.4 9.15
-3390.2 No failure -3675.1 17.3
In addition, there was another stress concentration region on the
both sides as Fig. 15(b). Fig. 15(c) shows the vector of the maximum
principal stress. Based on the magnitude and direction of the vectors,
crack propagation directions were predicted and compared with the
experimental results. The comparison confirmed that the predicted
crack propagation trend was similar to that in the test. This means
that the FE results reasonably predict the failure behavior of the joint.
4. Conclusions
In this study, failure behavior of two types of T-joint for a composite
bogie frame was evaluated under bending. The main findings from this
study are outlined below.
(1) For the adhesive-only joint, the average failure load and displacement
were 4.1 kN and 0.99 mm. The cracks propagated through the bond
layer and followed a mode I propagation mode.
(2) In contrast, the joint with the adhesive bonding and skin had an
average failure load of 68 kN and displacement of 8.1 mm. It also
showed a mode I propagation trend.
(3) In the joint with the adhesive bonding and skin, the adhesive region
revealed small contribution to the strength of the joint with adhesive
and skin. However, it was important in the deformation aspect.
(4) In the comparison of experiment and FE analysis, the FE results
revealed that an error was in range of 5.33% - 42.6% for the
adhesive-only joint and 1.07% and 17.3% for the joint with the
adhesive bonding and skin.
REFERENCES
1. Kim, J. S., Yoon, H. J., Lee, S. H., and Lee, W. K., “Manufacturing
and Structural Behavior Evaluation of Composite Side Beams Using
Autoclave Curing and Resin Transfer Molding Method,” Int. J.
Precis. Eng. Manuf., Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 723-730, 2012.
2. Kim, J. H., Shin, K. B., and Kim, J. S., “Optimum design on
suspension joint parts of GFRP composite bogie frame with H
shaped side beams for urban railway trains,” Int. J. Precis. Eng.
Manuf., Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 71-76, 2012.
3. Kim, J. S., Shin, K. B., Yoon, H. J., and Lee, W. G., “Durability
Evaluation of a Composite Bogie Frame with Bow-Shaped Side Beams,”
Journal of Mechanical Science Technology, Vol. 26, pp. 531-536, 2012.
4. Geuenich, W., Guenther, C., and Leo, R., “Dynamics of Fiber
Composite Bogies with Creep-controlled Wheelsets,” 8th IAVSD-
Symposium MIT, pp. 225-238, 1983.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 14, No. 1 JANUARY 2013 / 135

5. Guenther, C., Leo, R., and Wackerle, P., “New Technologies for
Rail Vehicle Bogies and Car Body Substructures,” MRS, Europe,
pp. 89-95, 1985.

6. Leo, R. and Lang, H. P., “Fiber-composite Bogies on Test,” Railway

Gazette International, pp. 632-633, 1986.

7. Maurin, L., Boussoir, J., Rougeault, S., Bugaud, M., Ferdinand, P.,
Landrot, A. G., Grunevald, Y.-H., and Chauvin, T., “FBG-based
Smart Composite Bogies for Railway Applications,” Proc. of 15th
Optical Fiber Sensors Conference Technical Digest, pp. 91-94, 2002.

8. ABAQUS User’s Manual, Simulia.