0
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.

References

Figures

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

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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