0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Comparisons of Shear Stress Transport and Detached Eddy Simulations of the Flow Around Trains

[+] Author and Article Information
Tian Li

Southwest Jiaotong University,
State Key Laboratory of Traction Power,
Chengdu 610031, China;
Department of Civil Engineering,
School of Engineering,
University of Birmingham,
Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

Hassan Hemida, Mohammad Rashidi

Department of Civil Engineering,
School of Engineering,
University of Birmingham,
Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

Jiye Zhang

Southwest Jiaotong University,
State Key Laboratory of Traction Power,
Chengdu 610031, China

Dominic Flynn

School of Engineering and the
Built Environment,
Birmingham City University,
Birmingham B5 5JU, UK

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 18, 2018; final manuscript received June 25, 2018; published online August 6, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Sergio Pirozzoli.

J. Fluids Eng 140(11), 111108 (Aug 06, 2018) (12 pages) Paper No: FE-18-1194; doi: 10.1115/1.4040672 History: Received March 18, 2018; Revised June 25, 2018

Shear stress transport (SST) kω model and detached eddy simulation (DES) have been widely applied in crosswind stability simulations for trains in the literature. In the previous research, the influence of the SST and DES approaches on the flow field around trains, which affects the surface pressure and consequently the aerodynamic forces of the train, was not properly investigated in terms of their influence flow field. The SST and improved delayed detached eddy simulation (IDDES) turbulence models have been tested in this study for their ability to predict the flow field around, surface pressure, and aerodynamic forces on a 1/25th scale Class 390 train subjected to crosswinds. Numerical simulation results were validated with experimental data. Results show that both SST and IDDES predict similar trends in the mean flow field around the train. However, there were some slight differences observed in the size of vortices, the position of separation points, and consequently, the separation and attachment lines. The SST results compared more closely to the experimental data than IDDES for pressure coefficient on the leeward surface and roof at certain loops. Slight differences were observed in force coefficients for SST and DES. The side force coefficients calculated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) sit within the experimental uncertainty, whereas the lift force coefficients deviated greatly due to the omission of some underbody geometrical features. Both SST and IDDES approaches used the linear-upwind stabilized transport (LUST) scheme and were able to predict accurately the time-averaged surface pressure within the margin of the experimental uncertainty.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

ERA, 2008, “Technical Specification for Interoperability Relating to the Rolling Stock Sub-System of the Trans-European High-Speed Rail System,” Official Journal of the European Union, UK, No. 2008/232/EC.
BSI, 2010, “Railway Applications - Aerodynamics—Part 6: Requirements and Test Procedures for Cross Wind Assessment,” British Standards Institution, London, Standard No. EN14067-6.
Baker, C. J. , Cheli, F. , Orellano, A. , Paradot, N. , Proppe, C. , and Rocchi, D. , 2009, “Cross-Wind Effects on Road and Rail Vehicles,” Veh. Syst. Dyn., 47(8), pp. 983–1022. [CrossRef]
Diedrichs, B. , 2008, “Aerodynamic Calculations of Crosswind Stability of a High-Speed Train Using Control Volumes of Arbitrary Polyhedral Shape,” International Colloquium on Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics and Applications (BBAA VI), Milano, Italy, July 20–24. http://bbaa6.mecc.polimi.it/uploads/abstract_files/CWT01_STAMPA1.pdf
Morden, J. A. , Hemida, H. , and Baker, C. J. , 2015, “Comparison of RANS and Detached Eddy Simulation Results to Wind-Tunnel Data for the Surface Pressures Upon a Class 43 High-Speed Train,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 137(4), p. 041108. [CrossRef]
Premoli, A. , Rocchi, D. , Schito, P. , and Tomasini, G. , 2016, “Comparison Between Steady and Moving Railway Vehicles Subjected to Crosswind by CFD Analysis,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 156, pp. 29–40. [CrossRef]
Maleki, S. , Burton, D. , and Thompson, M. C. , 2017, “Assessment of Various Turbulence Models (ELES, SAS, URANS and RANS) for Predicting the Aerodynamics of Freight Train Container Wagons,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 170, pp. 68–80. [CrossRef]
Cheli, F. , Ripamonti, F. , Rocchi, D. , and Tomasini, G. , 2010, “Aerodynamic Behaviour Investigation of the New EMUV250 Train to Cross Wind,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 98(4–5), pp. 189–201. [CrossRef]
Diedrichs, B. , Sima, M. , Orellano, A. , and Tengstrand, H. , 2007, “Crosswind Stability of a High-Speed Train on a High Embankment,” J. Rail Rapid Transit, 221(2), pp. 205–225. [CrossRef]
Sima, M. , Gurr, A. , and Orellano, A. , 2008, “Validation of CFD for the Flow Under a Train With 1:7 Scale Wind Tunnel Measurements,” International Colloquium on: Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics and Applications (BBAA VI), Milano, Italy, July 20–24. http://bbaa6.mecc.polimi.it/uploads/treni/bpr03.pdf
Yao, S. B. , Sun, Z. X. , Guo, D. L. , Chen, D. W. , and Yang, G. W. , 2013, “Numerical Study on Wake Characteristics of High-Speed Trains,” Acta Mech. Sin., 29(6), pp. 811–822. [CrossRef]
Zhang, J. , Li, J. , Tian, H. , Gao, G. , and Sheridan, J. , 2016, “Impact of Ground and Wheel Boundary Conditions on Numerical Simulation of the High-Speed Train Aerodynamic Performance,” J. Fluid Struct., 61, pp. 249–261. [CrossRef]
Flynn, D. , Hemida, H. , Soper, D. , and Baker, C. , 2014, “Detached-Eddy Simulation of the Slipstream of an Operational Freight Train,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 132, pp. 1–12. [CrossRef]
Krajnović, S. , Nakada, K. , and Basara, B. , 2012, “Large Eddy Simulation of the Flow Around a Simplified Train Moving Through a Crosswind Flow,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 110, pp. 86–99. [CrossRef]
Hemida, H. , and Baker, C. , 2010, “LES of the Flow Around a Freight Wagon Subjected to Crosswind,” Comput. Fluids, 39(10), pp. 1944–1956. [CrossRef]
García, J. , Muñoz-Paniagua, J. , Jiménez, A. , Migoya, E. , and Crespo, A. , 2015, “Numerical Study of the Influence of Synthetic Turbulent Inflow Conditions on the Aerodynamics of a Train,” J. Fluid Struct., 56, pp. 134–151. [CrossRef]
Li, T. , Yu, M. G. , Zhang, J. Y. , and Zhang, W. H. , 2015, “A Fast Equilibrium State Approach to Determine Interaction Between Stochastic Crosswinds and High-Speed Trains,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 143, pp. 91–104. [CrossRef]
Dorigatti, F. , Sterling, M. , Baker, C. J. , and Quinn, A. D. , 2015, “Crosswind Effects on the Stability of a Model Passenger Train—A Comparison of Static and Moving Experiments,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 138, pp. 36–51. [CrossRef]
Menter, F. R. , 1994, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Shur, M. L. , Spalart, P. R. , Strelets, M. K. , and Travin, A. K. , 2008, “A Hybrid RANS-LES Approach With Delayed-DES and Wall Modelled LES Capabilities,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 29(6), pp. 1638–1649.
Bocciolone, M. , Cheli, F. , Corradi, R. , Muggiasca, S. , and Tomasini, G. , 2008, “Crosswind Action on Rail Vehicles: Wind Tunnel Experimental Analyses,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 96(5), pp. 584–610. [CrossRef]
OpenCFD, 2014, “OpenFOAM,” OpenCFD, Ltd., Bracknell, UK, accessed Apr. 1, 2014, http://www.openfoam.com

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Computational domain, refinement boxes, and boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Relative wind velocity and nonuniform velocity profile at the inlet: (a) relative wind velocity and (b) vertical velocity profile along the height

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Loops of pressure taps along the leading car: (a) experimental model and (b) loops of pressure taps

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Computational coarse mesh: (a) mesh around the train and (b) boundary layer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Pressure coefficients obtained using SST for different meshes at two different loops: (a) loop 2 and (b) loop 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pressure coefficients obtained using DES for different meshes at two different loops: (a) loop 2 and (b) loop 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Streamlines projected onto the cross section x = 0.48 m obtained using SST with different meshes: (a) coarse mesh and (b) fine mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Time-averaged trace lines on the windward surface of the train obtained using SST and DES: (a) SST and (b) DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Time-averaged separation and reattachment lines on the windward surface of the train obtained using SST and DES: (a) SST and (b) DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Pressure distribution at different loops on the power car: (a) loop 1, (b) loop 2, (c) loop 3, (d) loop 4, (e) loop 5, and (f) loop 6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Pressure distribution on and near-wake flow around the windward surface of the cross section x = 0.48 m using SST and DES: (a) middle windward surface, (b) pressure obtained using SST and DES, (c) SST, and (d) DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Time-averaged separation and reattachment lines on the roof of the train obtained using SST and DES: (a) SST and (b) DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Pressure distribution on and near-wake flow around the left roof of the cross section x = 0.48 m using SST and DES: (a) left roof, (b) pressure obtained using SST and DES, (c) SST, and (d) DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Time-averaged trace lines on the leeward surface of the train obtained using SST and DES: (a) SST and (b) DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Time-averaged separation and reattachment lines on the leeward surface of the train obtained using SST and DES: (a) SST and (b) DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Pressure distribution on and near-wake flow around the middle leeward surface of the cross section x = 0.48 m using SST and DES: (a) lower leeward surface, (b) pressure obtained using SST and DES, (c) SST, and (d) DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Pressure distribution on and near-wake flow around the bottom of the cross section x = 0.48 m using SST and DES: (a) bottom region, (b) pressure obtained using SST and DES, (c) SST, and (d) DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Streamlines projected onto different cross sections: (a) x = 0.085 m and SST, (b) x = 0.085 m and DES, (c) x = 0.25 m and SST, (d) x = 0.25 m and DES, (e) x = 0.81 m and SST, and (f) x = 0.81 m and DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Velocity vectors around the upper corner on the leeward surface projected onto the cross section x = 0.25 m: (a) SST and (b) DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Time-averaged separation and reattachment lines on the underside of the train obtained using SST and DES: (a) SST and (b) DES

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Time-histories of the side and lift force coefficients obtained using DES: (a) side force coefficient and (b) lift force coefficient

Tables

Errata

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