Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Comparison of RANS and Detached Eddy Simulation Results to Wind-Tunnel Data for the Surface Pressures Upon a Class 43 High-Speed Train

[+] Author and Article Information
Justin A. Morden

School of Civil Engineering,
University of Birmingham,
Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
e-mail: jam239@bham.ac.uk

Hassan Hemida

School of Civil Engineering,
University of Birmingham,
Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
e-mail: h.hemida@bham.ac.uk

Chris. J. Baker

School of Civil Engineering,
University of Birmingham,
Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
e-mail: c.j.baker@bham.ac.uk

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received April 10, 2014; final manuscript received November 21, 2014; published online January 20, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Alfredo Soldati.

J. Fluids Eng 137(4), 041108 (Apr 01, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1185; doi: 10.1115/1.4029261 History: Received April 10, 2014; Revised November 21, 2014; Online January 20, 2015

Currently, there are three different methodologies for evaluating the aerodynamics of trains; full-scale measurements, physical modeling using wind-tunnel, and moving train rigs and numerical modeling using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Moreover, different approaches and turbulence modeling are normally used within the CFD framework. The work in this paper investigates the consistency of two of these methodologies; the wind-tunnel and the CFD by comparing the measured surface pressure with the computed CFD values. The CFD is based on Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) turbulence models (five models were used; the Spalart–Allmaras (S–A), k-ε, k-ε re-normalization group (RNG), realizable k-ε, and shear stress transport (SST) k-ω) and two detached eddy simulation (DES) approaches; the standard DES and delayed detached eddy simulation (DDES). This work was carried out as part of a larger project to determine whether the current methods of CFD, model scale and full-scale testing provide consistent results and are able to achieve agreement with each other when used in the measurement of train aerodynamic phenomena. Similar to the wind-tunnel, the CFD approaches were applied to external aerodynamic flow around a 1/25th scale class 43 high-speed tunnel (HST) model. Comparison between the CFD results and wind-tunnel data were conducted using coefficients for surface pressure, measured at the wind-tunnel by pressure taps fitted over the surface of the train in loops. Four different meshes where tested with both the RANS SST k-ω and DDES approaches to form a mesh sensitivity study. The four meshes featured 18, 24, 34, and 52 × 106 cells. A mesh of 34 × 106 cells was found to provide the best balance between accuracy and computational cost. Comparison of the results showed that the DES based approaches; in particular, the DDES approach was best able to replicate the wind-tunnel results within the margin of uncertainty.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Sterling, M., Baker, C., Bouferrouk, A., Oneil, H., Wood, S., and Crosbie, E., 2008, “An Investigation of the Aerodynamic Admittances and Aerodynamic Weighting Functions of Trains,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 97(11–12), pp. 512–522. [CrossRef]
Quinn, A., and Hayward, M., 2008, “Full-Scale Aerodynamic Measurements Underneath a High Speed Train,” Proceedings of the BBAA VI, Milano, Italy.
Kwon, H. B., and Park, C. S., 2006, “An Experimental Study on the Relationship Between Ballast Flying Phenomenon and Strong Wind Under High Speed Train,” Proceedings of the World Congress on Rail Research, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Baker, C. J., Jones, J., Lopez-Calleja, F., and Munday, J., 2004, “Measurements of the Cross Wind Forces on Trains,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 92(7–8), pp. 547–563. [CrossRef]
Yongle, L., Hu, P., Cai, C. S., Zhang, M., and Qiang, S., 2012, “Wind Tunnel Study of a Sudden Change of Train Wind Loads Due to the Wind Shielding Effects of Bridge Towers and Passing Trains,” J. Eng. Mech., 139(9), pp. 1249–1259.
Gilbert, T., Baker, C. J., and Quinn, A., 2013, “Gusts Caused by High-Speed Trains in Confined Spaces and Tunnels,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 121, pp. 39–48. [CrossRef]
Baker, C. J., Dalley, S. J., Johnson, T., Quinn, A., and Wright, N. G., 2001, “The Slipstream and Wake of a High-Speed Train,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part F, 215(2), pp. 83–99. [CrossRef]
Hemida, H., Baker, C., and Gao, G., 2012, “The Calculation of Train Slipstreams Using Large-Eddy Simulation,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 0954409712460982.
Mahesh, K., Constantinescu, G., and Moin, P., 2004, “A Numerical Method for Large-Eddy Simulation in Complex Geometries,” J. Comput. Phys., 197(1), pp. 215–240. [CrossRef]
Axerio-Cilies, J., and Iaccarino, G., 2012, “An Aerodynamic Investigation of an Isolated Rotating Formula 1 Wheel Assembly,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 134(12), p. 121101. [CrossRef]
Hemida, H., and KrajnoviÄ, S., 2009, “Transient Simulation of the Aerodynamic Response of a Double-Deck Bus in Gusty Winds,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 131(3), p. 031101. [CrossRef]
Forsythe, J. R., Squires, K. D., Wurtzler, K. E., and Spalart, P. R., 2004, “Detached-Eddy Simulation of the F-15E at High Alpha,” J. Aircraft4(2), pp. 193–200. [CrossRef]
Hong-Sik, I., and Zha, G., 2014, “Delayed Detached Eddy Simulation of Airfoil Stall Flows Using High Order Schemes,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 136(11), p. 111104. [CrossRef]
Guilmineau, E., Deng, G., and Wackers, J., 2011, “Numerical Simulation With a DES Approach for Automotive Flows,” J. Fluids Struct., 27(5), pp. 807–816. [CrossRef]
Maddox, S., Squires, K. D., Wurtzler, K. E., and Forsythe, J. R., 2004, “Detached-Eddy Simulation of the Ground Transportation System,” The Aerodynamics of Heavy Vehicles: Trucks, Buses, and Trains, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 89–104.
Spalart, P., Shur, M., Strelets, M., and Travin, A., 2010 “Initial RANS and DDES of a Rudimentary Landing Gear,” Progress in Hybrid RANS-LES Modelling, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 101–110.
Sima, M., Gurr, A., and Orellano, A., 2008, “Validation of CFD for the Flow Under a Train With 1: 7 Scale Wind Tunnel Measurements,” Proceedings of the BBAA VI International Colloquium on Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics and Applications, Milano, Italy.
Spalart, P. R., Jou, W. H., Strelets, M., and Allmaras, S. R., 1997, “Comments on the Feasibility of LES for Wings, and on a Hybrid RANS/LES Approach,” Adv. DNS/LES, 1, pp. 4–8.
Hemida, H., and KrajnoviÄ, S., 2008, “LES Study of the Influence of a Train-Nose Shape on the Flow Structures Under Cross-Wind Conditions,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 130(9), p. 091101. [CrossRef]
Liu, J., Zhang, J., and Zhang, W., 2013, “Study on Characteristics of Unsteady Aerodynamic Loads of a High-Speed Train Under Crosswinds by Large Eddy Simulation,” J. China Railw. Soc., 6, p. 004.
Krajnovic, S., 2009, “Exploring Flow Structures Around a Simplified ICE2 Train Subjected to a 30 Degree Side Wind Using LES,” Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 3(1), pp. 28–41.
Dong, S., and Zheng, X., 2011, “Direct Numerical Simulation of Spiral Turbulence,” J. Fluid Mech., 668, pp. 150–173. [CrossRef]
Sengupta, T. K., Bhaumik, S., and Bhumkar, Y. G., 2012, “Direct Numerical Simulation of Two-Dimensional Wall-Bounded Turbulent Flows From Receptivity Stage,” Phys. Rev. E, 85(2), p. 026308. [CrossRef]
Moser, R. D., Kim, J., and Mansour, N. N., 1999, “Direct Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Channel Flow Up to Re = 590,” Phys. Fluids, 11(4), pp. 943–945. [CrossRef]
Moore, G. E., 1998, “Cramming More Components Onto Integrated Circuits,” Proc. IEEE, 86(1), pp. 82–85. [CrossRef]
RWDI-Inc., 2012, Structual Wind Tunnel Assessments—High Speed Train, J.Kilpatrick, ed., RWDI, Bedfordshire, UK.
Spalart, P., and Allmaras, S., 1992, “A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows,” Proceedings of the 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Aerospace Sciences Meetings, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Jones, W. P., and Launder, B., 1972, “The Prediction of Laminarization With a Two-Equation Model of Turbulence,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 15(2), pp. 301–314. [CrossRef]
Yakhot, V., and Orszag, S. A., 1986, “Renormalization Group Analysis of Turbulence. I. Basic Theory,” J. Sci. Comput., 1(1), pp. 3–51. [CrossRef]
Shih, T.-H., Liou, W. W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z., and Zhu, J., 1994, “A New k-Epsilon Eddy Viscosity Model for High Reynolds Number Turbulent Flows: Model Development and Validation,” NASA STI/Recon Technical Report No. 95, p. 11442.
Menter, F. R., 1994, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Spalart, P. R., Deck, S., Shur, M. L., Squires, K. D., Strelets, M. KH., and Travin, A., 2006, “A New Version of Detached-Eddy Simulation, Resistant to Ambiguous Grid Densities,” Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 20(3), pp. 181–195. [CrossRef]
BSI, En 14067-4:2005+A1, 2009, Part 4: Requirements and Test Procedures for Aerodynamics on Open Track, BSI, London, UK.
OpenCFD, Ltd., “OpenFOAM,” http://www.openfoam.com, Last Accessed Apr. 1, 2014.
Patankar, S. V., and Spalding, D. B., 1972, “A Calculation Procedure for Heat, Mass and Momentum Transfer in Three-Dimensional Parabolic Flows,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 15(10), pp. 1787–1806. [CrossRef]
Issa, R. I., 1986, “Solution of the Implicitly Discretised Fluid Flow Equations by Operator-Splitting,” J. Comput. Phys., 62(1), pp. 40–65. [CrossRef]
Sweby, P. K., 1984, “High Resolution Schemes Using Flux Limiters for Hyperbolic Conservation Laws,” SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 21(5), pp. 995–1011. [CrossRef]
Baker, C., 2010, “The Flow Around High Speed Trains,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 98(6), pp. 277–298. [CrossRef]
Jönsson, M., 2010, “Numerical Investigation of the Flow Underneath a Train and the Effect of Design Changes,” Master thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.
Schatzmann, M., Olesen, H. R., and Franke, J., 2010, COST 732 Model Evaluation Case Studies: Approach and Results, COST Office, Brussels, Belgium.
Hertwig, D., Efthimiou, G. C., Bartzis, J. G., and Leitl, B., 2012, “CFD-RANS Model Validation of Turbulent Flow in a Semi-Idealized Urban Canopy,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 111, pp. 61–72. [CrossRef]
Buccolieri, R., and Sabatino, S. D., 2011, “MUST Experiment Simulations Using CFD and Integral Models,” Int. J. Environ. Pollut., 44(1), pp. 376–384. [CrossRef]
VDI, 2005, Environmental Meteorology—Prognostic Microscale Wind Field Models—Evaluation for Flow Around Buildings and Obstacles, VDI 3738, Part 9, Beuth Verlag, Berlin, Germany.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Left is the full-scale NMT, right is the 1/25th scale HST wind-tunnel model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Computational domain (H is height of train model = 0.145 m)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Close-up of train, splitter plate, and STBR

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Ballast shoulder dimensions (front slope angle 30 deg)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Close-up of the fine mesh showing the engine and first bogie, with a central slice through the internal mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Loop locations on train

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Cp at loop 1 (Fig. 6) obtained using the SST k-ω model on the four different meshes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Cp at loop 1 (Fig. 6) obtained using the DDES approach on the four different meshes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Cp at loop 3 obtained using the SST k-ω approach on the four different meshes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Cp at loop 3 obtained using the DDES approach on the four different meshes

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Cp at loop location 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Cp at loop location 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Cp at loop location 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Loop along train center line

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Cp along train center line

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Loop start location and direction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Cp at loop location 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Cp at loop location 5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Close-up on the nose section of Fig. 15

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Comparison of surface pressures over STBR step




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In