Aerodynamic behavior of a high-speed train with a braking plate mounted in the region of inter-car gap or uniform-car body: A comparative numerical study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020
Aerodynamic behavior of a high-speed train with a braking plate mounted in the region of inter-car gap or uniform-car body: A comparative numerical study
The continuous increase in train speed has brought serious challenges to train braking safety. Aerodynamic braking technology can effectively improve the braking effect of trains at high speeds. In this study, an aerodynamic braking device installed in the inter-car gap region (ICG) of a high-speed train is proposed and the aerodynamic performance of the high-speed train with an aerodynamic braking device is assessed by improved delayed detached eddy simulation (IDDES) based on the κ-ω turbulence model. The results show that the opening of the plate significantly changes the aerodynamic performance of the train, thereby greatly increasing the aerodynamic forces of the train and their fluctuation degree. The effect of the opening of the plate increases the turbulence of the downstream flow field around the tail car. The affected area is mainly concentrated in the flow field around the location of the plate for the pressure field and the whole flow field behind the plate for the velocity field. The effect of the plate mounted on the uniform-car body region (UCG) on increasing the aerodynamic drag is better than that at the ICG, though the aerodynamic fluctuation and the influence on the surrounding flow field will also be great.
Ishikawa Y and Kawamura A. Maximum adhesive force control in super high speed train. In: Proceedings of power conversion conference-PCC’97, Vol. 2, 1997, pp.951–954. USA: IEEE.
2.
KazumasaOMasafumiY.
Development of aerodynamic brake of maglev vehicle for emergency use. Q Rep Railway Tech Res Inst1989;
37: 60–65.
3.
AlbertzDDappenSHennebergerG.
Calculation of the 3D nonlinear eddy current field in moving conductors and its application to braking systems. IEEE Trans Magn1996;
32: 768–771.
4.
BriginshawD.
The new generation of high speed train AGV in France. IRJ2000;
40: 15–18.
5.
PugiLMalvezziMPapiniS, et al.
Design and preliminary validation of a tool for the simulation of train braking performance. J Mod Transport2013;
21: 247–257.
6.
BrockieNJWBakerCJ.
The aerodynamic drag of high speed trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn1990;
34: 273–290.
7.
SchetzJA.
Aerodynamics of high-speed trains. Annu Rev Fluid Mech2001;
33: 371–414.
BakerCJ.
A review of train aerodynamics part 2 – applications. Aeronaut J2014;
118: 345–382.
10.
SawadaK.
Development of magnetically levitated high speed transport system in Japan. IEEE Trans Magn1996;
32: 2230–2235.
11.
YoshimuraMSaitoSHosakaS, et al.
Characteristics of the aerodynamic brake of the vehicle on the Yamanashi maglev test line. Q Rep RTRI2000;
41: 74–78.
12.
Shirakuni N, Endo Y, Takahashi K, et al. Overview of new vehicles for the Yamanashi Maglev Test Line. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on magnetically levitated systems (Maglev 2002), 2002.
13.
WuMLZhuYYTianC, et al.
Influence of aerodynamic braking on the pressure wave of a crossing high-speed train. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A2011;
12: 979–984.
14.
NiuJWangYLiuF, et al.
Numerical study on the effect of a downstream braking plate on the detailed flow field and unsteady aerodynamic characteristics of an upstream braking plate with or without a crosswind. Veh Syst Dyn2020. DOI: 10.1080/00423114.2019.1708959.
15.
NiuJWangYWuD, et al.
Comparison of different configurations of aerodynamic braking plate on the flow around a high-speed train. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech2020;
14: 655–668.
16.
NiuJWangYLiR, et al.
Comparison of aerodynamic characteristics of high-speed train for different configurations of aerodynamic braking plates installed in inter-car gap region. Flow Turbul Combust2020. DOI: 10.1007/s10494-020-00196-0.
17.
JianyongZMenglingWChunT, et al.
Aerodynamic braking device for high-speed trains: design, simulation and experiment. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2014;
228: 260–270.
18.
GaoLXiYWangG, et al.
Opening angle rules of the aerodynamic brake panel. J Donghua Univ2016;
33: 20–24.
19.
LiqiangGXiYGuohuaW, et al.
CFD-based study on aerodynamic brake wind-panel forms for high-speed train. Chin J Constr Mach2015;
3: 236–241.
20.
LiqiangGXiongHDejianS, et al.
Influence rule of aerodynamics braking force from the front brake panel. J China Railway Soc2018;
40: 31–37.
21.
FremionNVincentNJacobM, et al.
Aerodynamic noise radiated by the intercoach spacing and the bogie of a high-speed train. J Sound Vib2000;
231: 577–593.
22.
MizushimaFTakakuraHKuritaT, et al.
Experimental investigation of aerodynamic noise generated by a train-car gap. J Fluid Sci Technol2007;
2: 464–479.
23.
YamazakiNTakaishiT.
Wind tunnel tests on reduction of aeroacoustic noise from car gaps and bogie sections. Q Rep RTRI2007;
48: 229–235.
24.
NiuJWangYZhouD.
Effect of the outer windshield schemes on aerodynamic characteristics around the car-connecting parts and train aerodynamic performance. Mech Syst Signal Process2019;
130: 1–16.
25.
FlynnDHemidaHSoperD, et al.
Detached-eddy simulation of the slipstream of an operational freight train. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2014;
132: 1–12.
26.
NiuJWangYLiuF, et al.
Numerical study on comparison of detailed flow field and aerodynamic performance of bogies of stationary train and moving train. Veh Syst Dyn2020. DOI: 10.1080/00423114.2020.1794015.
27.
MuldTWEfraimssonGHenningsonDS.
Wake characteristics of high-speed trains with different lengths. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2014;
228: 333–342.
28.
Munoz-PaniaguaJGarcíaJLehugeurB.
Evaluation of RANS, SAS and IDDES models for the simulation of the flow around a high-speed train subjected to crosswind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2017;
171: 50–66.
29.
LiTHemidaHZhangJ, et al.
Comparisons of shear stress transport and detached eddy simulations of the flow around trains. J Fluids Eng2018; 140: 111108.
30.
WangJMinelliGDongT, et al.
The effect of bogie fairings on the slipstream and wake flow of a high-speed train. An IDDES study. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019;
191: 183–202.
ShurMLSpalartPRStreletsMK, et al.
A hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and wall-modelled LES capabilities. Int J Heat Fluid Flow2008;
29: 1638–1649.
33.
HuangSHemidaHYangM.
Numerical calculation of the slipstream generated by a CRH2 high-speed train. Proc IMechEng, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2016;
230: 103–116.
34.
XiaoLXiaoZDuanZ, et al.
Improved-delayed-detached-eddy simulation of cavity-induced transition in hypersonic boundary layer. Int J Heat Fluid Flow2015;
51: 138–150.
35.
NiuJQZhouDLiuTH, et al.
Numerical simulation of aerodynamic performance of a couple multiple units high-speed train. Veh Syst Dyn2017;
55: 681–703.
36.
NiuJZhouDLiangX.
Numerical investigation of the aerodynamic characteristics of high-speed trains of different lengths under crosswind with or without windbreaks. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech2018;
12: 195–215.
37.
LatimerBRPollardA.
Comparison of pressure-velocity coupling solution algorithms. Numer Heat Transfer1985;
8: 635–652.
38.
JangDSJetliRAcharyaS.
Comparison of the PISO, SIMPLER, and SIMPLEC algorithms for the treatment of the pressure-velocity coupling in steady flow problems. Numer Heat Transfer Part A Appl1986;
10: 209–228.
39.
ShenWZMichelsenJASørensenNN, et al.
An improved SIMPLEC method on collocated grids for steady and unsteady flow computations. Numer Heat Transfer Part B Fundamentals2003;
43: 221–239.
40.
WangSBellJRBurtonD, et al.
The performance of different turbulence models (URANS, SAS and DES) for predicting high-speed train slipstream. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2017;
165: 46–57.
41.
GaoGLiFHeK, et al.
Investigation of bogie positions on the aerodynamic drag and near wake structure of a high-speed train. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019;
185: 41–53.
42.
MalekiSBurtonDThompsonMC.
Flow structure between freight train containers with implications for aerodynamic drag. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019;
188: 194–206.
43.
NoguchiYSuzukiMBakerC, et al.
Numerical and experimental study on the aerodynamic force coefficients of railway vehicles on an embankment in crosswind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019;
184: 90–105.
44.
CEN European Standard. Railway applications-aerodynamics. Part 6: requirements and test procedures for cross wind assessment, CEN EN 14067-6. Belgium: CEN European Standard, 2010.
45.
NiuJWangYZhangL, et al.
Numerical analysis of aerodynamic characteristics of high-speed train with different train nose lengths. Int J Heat Mass Transfer2018;
127: 188–199.
46.
ChenZLiuTJiangZ, et al.
Comparative analysis of the effect of different nose lengths on train aerodynamic performance under crosswind. J Fluids Struct2018;
78: 69–85.
47.
NiuJQZhouDLiangXF.
Numerical simulation of the effects of obstacle deflectors on the aerodynamic performance of stationary high-speed trains at two yaw angles. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2018;
232: 913–927.
48.
ChenGLiXBLiuZ, et al.
Dynamic analysis of the effect of nose length on train aerodynamic performance. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019;
184: 198–208.
49.
GallagherMMordenJBakerC, et al.
Trains in crosswinds – comparison of full-scale on-train measurements, physical model tests and CFD calculations. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018;
175: 428–444.
50.
TschepeJFischerDNayeriCN, et al.
Investigation of high-speed train drag with towing tank experiments and CFD. Flow Turbul Combust2019;
102: 417–434.
51.
NiuJLiangXZhouD.
Experimental study on the effect of Reynolds number on aerodynamic performance of high-speed train with and without yaw angle. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2016;
157: 36–46.
52.
NiuJQZhouDLiangXF.
Experimental research on the aerodynamic characteristics of a high-speed train under different turbulence conditions. Exp Therm Fluid Sci2017;
80: 117–125.
53.
Hunt JC, Wray AA and Moin P. Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows. In: Proceeding of the summer program in Center for Turbulence Research, 1988. pp.193–208.
54.
DubiefYDelcayreF.
On coherent-vortex identification in turbulence. J Turbulence2000;
1: 1–22.
55.
CronerEBézardHSicotC, et al.
Aerodynamic characterization of the wake of an isolated rolling wheel. Int J Heat Fluid Flow2013;
43: 233–243.
56.
ShenoyRSmithMJParkMA.
Unstructured overset mesh adaptation with turbulence modeling for unsteady aerodynamic interactions. J Aircr2014;
51: 161–174.
57.
JawaharHKAiQAzarpeyvandM.
Experimental and numerical investigation of aerodynamic performance for airfoils with morphed trailing edges. Renewable Energy2018;
127: 355–367.
58.
NiuJWangYLiuF.
Numerical study on the effect of damaged windows on aerodynamic characteristics of passenger trains under strong crosswind. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science2020234: 2994–3003.
