The CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) numerical simulation method with the DES (detached eddy simulation) approach was adopted in this paper to investigate and compare the aerodynamic performance, pressure distributions of the train surface, and flow fields near the train model placed above the subgrade with non-rail, realistic rail, and simplified rail models under crosswind. The numerical methods were verified with the wind tunnel tests. Significant differences in aerodynamic performances of the train body and bogie were found in the cases with and without a rail model as the presence of the rail model had significant impacts on the flow field underneath the vehicle. A larger yaw angle can result in a more significant difference in aerodynamic coefficients. The deviations of the train aerodynamic forces and the pressure distribution on the train body with the realistic and simplified rail models were not significant. It was concluded that a rail model is necessary to get more realistic results, especially for large yaw angle conditions. Moreover, a simplified rectangular rail model is suggested to be employed instead of the realistic rail and is capable to get accurate results.
BakerCJ.The flow around high speed trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2010;
98: 277–298.
2.
ChenJGaoGZhuC.Detached-eddy simulation of flow around high-speed train on a bridge under cross winds. J Cent South Univ2016;
23: 2735–2736.
3.
GuoZLiuTYuM, et al.
Numerical study for the aerodynamic performance of double unit train under crosswind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019;
191: 203–214.
4.
HemidaHKrajnovićS.Exploring flow structures around a simplified ICE2 train subjected to a 30° side wind using LES. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech2009;
3: 28–41.
5.
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.
6.
NoguchiYSuzukiMBakerCJ, 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.
7.
TomasiniGGiappinoSCorradiR.Experimental investigation of the effects of embankment scenario on railway vehicle aerodynamic coefficients. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2014;
131: 59–71.
8.
GuoWWangYXiaH, et al.
Wind tunnel test on aerodynamic effect of wind barriers on train-bridge system. Sci China Technol Sci2015;
58: 219–225.
9.
GuoZLiuTChenZ, et al.
Aerodynamic influences of bogie's geometric complexity on high-speed trains under crosswind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2020;
196: 104053.
10.
HashmiSHemidaHSoperD.Wind tunnel testing on a train model subjected to crosswinds with different windbreak walls. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019;
195: 104013.
11.
TomasiniGGiappinoSCheliF, et al.
Windbreaks for railway lines: wind tunnel experimental tests. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2016;
230: 1270–1282.
12.
SuzukiMTanemotoKMaedaT.Aerodynamic characteristics of train/vehicles under cross winds. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2003;
91: 209–218.
13.
CheliFCorradiRRocchiD, et al.
Investigating on the effect of infrastructure scenario on aerodynamic force of train with wind tunnel tests on train scale models. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2010;
98: 353–362.
14.
SchoberMWeiseMOrellanoA, et al.
Wind tunnel investigation of an ICE 3 endcar on three standard ground scenarios. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2010;
98: 345–352.
15.
BellJRBurtonDThompsonMC, et al.
A wind-tunnel methodology for assessing the slipstream of high-speed trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2017;
166: 1–19.
16.
BellJRBurtonDThompsonMC, et al.
The effect of tail geometry on the slipstream and unsteady wake structure of high-speed trains. Exp Ther and Fluid Sci2017;
83: 215–230.
17.
KwakMLeeYLeeJ, et al. Experimental study on aerodynamic drag characteristics by train underbody shape variation. In: 30th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, New Orleans, USA, 25–28 June 2012, pp. 1–8. Virginia: AIAA.
18.
YouJChenYYangZ. Influence of the wheel rotation on underbody flow and aerodynamic forces of high speed train. Procedia Eng 2015; 126: 399--404.
19.
ZhangJLiJTianH, et al.
Impact of ground and wheel boundary conditions on numerical simulation of the high-speed train aerodynamic performance. J Fluids Struct2016;
61: 249–261.
20.
GarcíaJCrespoABerasarteA, et al.
Study of the flow between the train underbody and the ballast track. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2011;
99: 1089–1098.
21.
PazCSuárezEGilC, et al.
Effects of realistic ballasted track in the underbody flow of a high speed train via CFD simulations. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019;
184: 1–9.
22.
PazCSuárezEGilC.Numerical methodology for evaluating the effect of sleepers in the underbody flow of a high-speed train. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2017;
167: 140–147.
23.
ZhuJHuZ.Flow between the train underbody and trackbed around the bogie area and its impact on ballast flight. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2017;
166: 20–28.
24.
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.
25.
SicotCDeliancourtFBoreeJ, et al.
Representativeness of geometrical details during wind tunnel tests. Application to train aerodynamics in crosswind conditions. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018;
177: 186–196.
26.
Muñoz-PaniaguaJGarcíaJ.Aerodynamic surrogate-based optimization of the nose shape of a high-speed train for crosswind and passing-by scenarios. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019;
184: 139–152.
27.
DongTLiangXKrajnovićS, et al.
Effects of simplifying train bogies on surrounding flow and aerodynamic forces. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019;
191: 170–182.
28.
WangSBurtonDHerbstA, et al.
The effect of bogies on high-speed train slipstream and wake. J Fluids Struct2018;
83: 471–489.
29.
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.
30.
GiappinoSMelziSTomasiniG.High-speed freight trains for intermodal transportation: wind tunnel study on the aerodynamic coefficients of container wagons. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018;
175: 111–119.
31.
HeckmannAKurzeckBBünteT, et al.
Considerations on active control of crosswind stability of railway vehicles. Veh Syst Dyn2014;
52: 759–775.
32.
LeeYKimKHRhoJH, et al.
Investigation on aerodynamic drag of Korean high speed train (HEMU-430X) due to roof apparatus for electrical device. J Mech Sci Technol2016;
30: 1611–1616.
33.
BoccioloneMCheliFCorradiR, et al.
Crosswind action on rail vehicles: wind tunnel experimental analyses. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2008;
96: 584–610.
34.
EN 14067-6: 2010. Railway applications – aerodynamics – Part 6: requirements and test procedures for cross wind assessment.
35.
EN 14067-4: 2010. Railway applications – aerodynamics – Part 4: requirements and test procedures for aerodynamics on open track.
36.
HuoQMeiY.Rail effect on aerodynamic drag characteristics of high-speed train. JME2018;
54: 152–159.
37.
XiYMaoJGaoL.Aerodynamic force/moment for high-speed train bogie in crosswind field. J Cent South Univ2014;
45: 1705–1714.
38.
XiaCWangHShanX, et al.
Effects of ground configurations on the slipstream and near wake of a high-speed train. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2017;
168: 177–189.
39.
CheliFRocchiDGregoireR, et al. CFD analysis of the under carbody flow of an ETR500 high speed train. In: BBAA VI international colloquium on bluff bodies aerodynamics and applications, Milano, Italy, 20–24 July 2008.
40.
WuDWatersonNPPopeCW.Principles and practice of CFD-modelling of the forces and moments acting on trains in crosswind. Report, Mott MacDonald Ltd, UK, October 2009.
41.
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.
42.
DiedrichsB.On computational fluid dynamics modelling of crosswind effects on high-speed rolling stock. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2003;
217: 203–226.
43.
SpalartPR. Trends in turbulence treatments. In: Fluids 2000 conference and exhibit, 19–22 June 2000, Denver, USA.
44.
MasterovMVBaltussenMWKuipersJ.Numerical simulation of a square bubble column using detached eddy simulation and Euler–Lagrange approach. Int J Multiphase Flow2018;
107: 275–288.
45.
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.
46.
SpalartPR.Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations. Int J Heat and Fluid Flow2000;
21: 252–263.
47.
AprilLHMarkRDavidRM.Understanding turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) stationarity within a Forest canopy. Agric for Meteorol2015;
214-215: 124–133.
