Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-3
Comparative analysis of the aerodynamic performance of trains and dynamic responses of catenaries for windbreak walls with different heights under crosswind
Due to the deterioration of the crosswind-protection performance of the original earth embankment windbreak walls on the train with increased speed, researching the influence of the heightened windbreak walls on aerodynamic performances of trains as well as the protection of the catenary is necessary for optimizing the windproof performance. The improved delayed detached eddy simulation based on the shear stress transport (SST) κ-ω turbulence model was employed to simulate flow structures. Furthermore, the effect on the displacement of the catenary was investigated using the finite element method (FEM). The numerical case was validated against the field tests. The results show that the aerodynamic performances of the train were improved as the windbreak wall was heightened by 0.5 m. Whereas, further heightening the windbreak wall worsened the aerodynamic performance. When the windbreak wall was heightened by 0.5 and 1 m, the wind speed of the catenary was reduced by 31.17% and 53.87%, and the displacement of the catenary was reduced by 48.09% and 74.11%, respectively, compared with that of the original windbreak wall. These results reveal that the wind-protection performance on the train and catenary can be both improved by reasonably heightening windbreak walls.
DongTMinelliGWangJ, et al.The effect of ground clearance on the aerodynamics of a generic high-speed train. J Fluids Struct2020; 95: 102990. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2020.102990.
2.
WangMLiX-ZXiaoJ, et al.An experimental analysis of the aerodynamic characteristics of a high-speed train on a bridge under crosswinds. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018; 177: 92–100. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2018.03.021.
3.
SuzukiMTanemotoKMaedaT. Aerodynamic characteristics of train/vehicles under cross winds. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2003; 91: 209–218. DOI: 10.1016/s0167-6105(02)00346-x.
4.
YuMLiuJLiuD, et al.Investigation of aerodynamic effects on the high-speed train exposed to longitudinal and lateral wind velocities. J Fluids Struct2016; 61: 347–361. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2015.12.005.
5.
ZhangLYangM-zLiangX-F. Experimental study on the effect of wind angles on pressure distribution of train streamlined zone and train aerodynamic forces. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018; 174: 330–343. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2018.01.024.
6.
ChenZLiuTLiW, et al.Aerodynamic performance and dynamic behaviors of a train passing through an elongated hillock region beside a windbreak under crosswinds and corresponding flow mitigation measures. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2021; 208: 104434. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2020.104434.
7.
CheliFCorradiRRocchiD, et al.Wind tunnel tests on train scale models to investigate the effect of infrastructure scenario. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2010; 98: 353–362. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2010.01.001.
8.
Avila-SanchezSMeseguerJLopez-GarciaO. Turbulence intensity on catenary contact wires due to parapets placed on a double track bridge. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2010; 98: 504–511. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2010.03.003.
9.
BakerCJ. Train aerodynamic forces and moments from moving model experiments. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn1986; 24: 227–251. DOI: 10.1016/0167-6105(86)90024-3.
10.
TomasiniGGiappinoSCheliF, et al.Windbreaks for railway lines: wind tunnel experimental tests. Proc Inst Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit2016; 230: 1270–1282. DOI: 10.1177/0954409715596191.
11.
ZhangJGaoGLiuT, et al.Shape optimization of a kind of earth embankment type windbreak wall along the Lanzhou-Xinjiang railway. J Appl Fluid Mech2017; 10: 1189–1200. DOI: 10.18869/acadpub.jafm.73.241.27353.
12.
ChuC-RChangC-YHuangC-J, et al.Windbreak protection for road vehicles against crosswind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2013; 116: 61–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2013.02.001.
13.
MohebbiMRezvaniMA. Analysis of the effects of lateral wind on a high speed train on a double routed railway track with porous shelters. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019; 184: 116–127. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2018.11.011.
14.
QiaoZ. Optimization of existing wind break facilities on Nanjiang railway based on safe operation of EMU trains. China Railway2018; 12: 60–67. DOI: 10.19549/j.issn.1001-683x.2018.12.060.
15.
ZhuWChengJZhangY. Analysis and research on the stability of earth embankment wind-break wall with high dam board. Railway Stand Des2015; 59: 16–20.
16.
JohnsonT. Strong; wind effects on railway operations—16th october 1987. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn1996; 60: 251–266. DOI: 10.1016/0167-6105(96)00038-4.
17.
Lopez-GarciaOCarniceroAMaroñoJL. Influence of stiffness and contact modelling on catenary–pantograph system dynamics. J Sound Vib2007; 299: 806–821. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2006.07.018.
18.
Avila-SanchezSLopez-GarciaOCuervaA, et al.Assesment of the transverse galloping stability of a railway overhead located above a railway bridge. Int J Mech Sci2017; 131−132: 649–662. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2017.07.024.
19.
SticklandMTScanlonTJ. An investigation into the aerodynamic characteristics of catenary contact wires in a cross-wind. Proc Inst Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit2001; 215: 311–318. DOI: 10.1243/0954409011531602.
20.
XieQZhiX. Wind tunnel test of an aeroelastic model of a catenary system for a high-speed railway in China. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019; 184: 23–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2018.11.008.
21.
ParkT-JHanC-SJangJ-H. Dynamic sensitivity analysis for the pantograph of a high-speed rail vehicle. J Sound Vib2003; 266: 235–260. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-460x(02)01280-4.
22.
GuoZLiuTChenZ, et al.Aerodynamic influences of bogie’s geometric complexity on high-speed trains under crosswind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2020; 196: 104053. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2019.104053.
23.
GuoZLiuTChenZ, et al.Study of the flow around railway embankment of different heights with and without trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2020; 202: 104203. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2020.104203.
24.
NiuJZhouDWangY. Numerical comparison of aerodynamic performance of stationary and moving trains with or without windbreak wall under crosswind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018; 182: 1–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2018.09.011.
25.
ChenZLiuTJiangZ, et al.Comparative analysis of the effect of different nose lengths on train aerodynamic performance under crosswind. J Fluids Struct2018; 78: 69–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2017.12.016.
26.
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. DOI: 10.1080/19942060.2017.1390786.
27.
ZhangJWangJTanX, et al.Detached eddy simulation of flow characteristics around railway embankments and the layout of anemometers. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019; 193: 103968. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2019.103968.
28.
XiaYLiuTGuH, et al.Aerodynamic effects of the gap spacing between adjacent vehicles on wind tunnel train models. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech2020; 14: 835–852. DOI: 10.1080/19942060.2020.1773319.
29.
KozmarHProcinoLBorsaniA, et al.Sheltering efficiency of wind barriers on bridges. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2012; 107−108: 274–284. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2012.04.027.
30.
XuRWuFZhongM, et al.Numerical investigation on the aerodynamics and dynamics of a high-speed train passing through a tornado-like vortex. J Fluids Struct2020; 96: 103042. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2020.103042.
31.
ChenGLiX-BLiuZ, et al.Dynamic analysis of the effect of nose length on train aerodynamic performance. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019; 184: 198–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2018.11.021.
32.
LiXZhouDJiaL, et al.Effects of yaw angle on the unsteady aerodynamic performance of the pantograph of a high-speed train under crosswind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018; 182: 49–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2018.09.009.
33.
LeeJ-HKimY-GPaikJ-S, et al.Performance evaluation and design optimization using differential evolutionary algorithm of the pantograph for the high-speed train. J Mech Sci Techn2012; 26: 3253–3260. DOI: 10.1007/s12206-012-0833-5.
34.
ChoYH. Numerical simulation of the dynamic responses of railway overhead contact lines to a moving pantograph, considering a nonlinear dropper. J Sound Vib2008; 315: 433–454. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2008.02.024.
35.
HuYHuangP. Building and analysis for dynamic simulation model of catenary. J Mech Strength2020; 42: 919–924.
36.
TangJWangBLuoR. Analysis of wind load by formula for jack up platform. Ship Eng2016; 38: 35–38. DOI: 10.13788/j.cnki.cbgc.2016.S1.035.
37.
DingLLuX. Impact of modifying terrain roughness class on theoretic wind pressure of air filtration. Heat Ventilat Air Condit2005; 35: 7–9.
38.
ZhuBChenG. Study on wind load on the topside modules of fixed platforms. China Pet Mach2020; 48: 55–61.
39.
LiuTChenZZhouX, et al.A CFD analysis of the aerodynamics of a high-speed train passing through a windbreak transition under crosswind. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech2018; 12: 137–151. DOI: 10.1080/19942060.2017.1360211.
40.
LiuT-HChenX-DLiW, et al.Field study on the interior pressure variations in high-speed trains passing through tunnels of different lengths. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2017; 169: 54–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2017.07.004.
41.
LiX-BChenGWangZ, et al.Dynamic analysis of the flow fields around single- and double-unit trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019; 188: 136–150. DOI: 10.1016/j.jweia.2019.02.015.
