Numerical study on the effect of damaged windows on aerodynamic characteristics of passenger trains under strong crosswind

Abstract

Sand and gravel blown up by strong wind will cause damage to windows. Following up, it will cause the change in the flow field around a train immediately, which has a significant impact on the aerodynamic performance of the train. Delayed detached-eddy simulation based on the shear stress transport κ-ω turbulence model was used to investigate the aerodynamic characteristics of passenger vehicles under crosswind, and the effect of damaged windows on the train aerodynamic performance and flow field around the train was analyzed and compared. The grid generation and numerical method are verified in the previous studies. Results show that the aerodynamic performance of a passenger vehicle is significantly affected by damaged windows on both sides of the passenger vehicle, both the aerodynamic lateral force and overturning moment of the passenger vehicle were decreased, and this has a small effect on the aerodynamic performance of the downstream passenger vehicle. Fluctuation of the aerodynamic lift, lateral force, and overturning moment of a vehicle with damaged windows on both sides of the vehicle is significantly increased. Damaged windows do not change the existence of the main vortices around vehicles, but the size, location, and strength of the main vortices are obviously changed, especially when windows on both sides of the vehicle are damaged. Therefore, when windows on the windward side of the vehicles are damaged, opening or broking windows on the leeward side of the vehicles will help reduce the risk of vehicles overturning and derailment.

Keywords

Passenger train aerodynamic characteristics damaged windows crosswind numerical simulation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Fujii

Maeda

Ishida

, et al. Wind-induced accidents of train/vehicles and their measures in Japan. Quart Rep RTRI 1999; 40: 50–55.

Baker

Cheli

Orellano

, et al. Cross-wind effects on road and rail vehicles. Veh Syst Dyn 2009; 47: 983–1022.

Baker

. The flow around high speed trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2010; 98: 277–298.

Baker

. A framework for the consideration of the effects of crosswinds on trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2013; 123: 130–142.

Howell

. Aerodynamic response of maglev train models to a crosswind gust. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1986; 22: 205–213.

Baker

. Ground vehicles in high cross winds, part II: unsteady aerodynamic forces. J Fluids Struct 1991; 5: 91–111.

Baker

. Ground vehicles in high cross winds, part III: the interaction of aerodynamic forces and the vehicle system. J Fluids Struct 1991; 5: 221–241.

Schetz

. Aerodynamics of high-speed trains. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 2001; 33: 371–414.

Raghunathan

Kim

Setoguchi

. Aerodynamics of high-speed railway train. Prog Aerosp Sci 2002; 38: 469–514.

10.

Suzuki

Tanemoto

Maeda

. Aerodynamic characteristics of train/vehicles under cross winds. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2003; 91: 209–218.

11.

Diedrichs

. Aerodynamic crosswind stability of a regional train model. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2010; 224: 580–591.

12.

Baker

Jones

Lopez-Calleja

, et al. Measurements of the cross wind forces on trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2004; 92: 547–563.

13.

Niu

Liang

Zhou

. Experimental study on the effect of Reynolds number on aerodynamic performance of high-speed train with and without yaw angle. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2016; 157: 36–46.

14.

Cheli

Ripamonti

Rocchi

, et al. Aerodynamic behaviour investigation of the new EMUV250 train to cross wind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2010; 98: 189–201.

15.

Bocciolone

Cheli

Corradi

, et al. Crosswind action on rail vehicles: wind tunnel experimental analyses. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2008; 96: 584–610.

16.

Baker

. The simulation of unsteady aerodynamic cross wind forces on trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2010; 98: 88–99.

17.

Niu

Zhou

Liu

, et al. Numerical simulation of aerodynamic performance of a couple multiple units high-speed train. Veh Syst Dyn 2017; 55: 681–703.

18.

Niu

Zhou

Liang

. Experimental research on the aerodynamic characteristics of a high-speed train under different turbulence conditions. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2017; 80: 117–125.

19.

Khier

Breuer

Durst

. Flow structure around trains under side wind conditions: a numerical study. Comput Fluids 2000; 29: 179–195.

20.

Sanquer

Barre

de Virel

, et al. Effect of cross winds on high-speed trains: development of a new experimental methodology. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2004; 92: 535–545.

21.

Schober

Weise

Orellano

, et al. Wind tunnel investigation of an ICE 3 endcar on three standard ground scenarios. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2010; 98: 345–352.

22.

Hemida

Krajnović

. LES study of the influence of a train-nose shape on the flow structures under cross-wind conditions. J Fluids Eng 2008; 130: 091101.

23.

Chen

Liu

Jiang

, et al. Comparative analysis of the effect of different nose lengths on train aerodynamic performance under crosswind. J Fluids Struct 2018; 78: 69–85.

24.

Niu

Zhou

Liang

. Numerical investigation of the aerodynamic characteristics of high-speed trains of different lengths under crosswind with or without windbreaks. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 2018; 12: 195–215.

25.

Liu

Chen

Zhou

, et al. A CFD analysis of the aerodynamics of a high-speed train passing through a windbreak transition under crosswind. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 2018; 12: 137–151.

26.

Mohebbi

Rezvani

. Two-dimensional analysis of the influence of windbreaks on airflow over a high-speed train under crosswind using lattice Boltzmann method. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2018; 232: 863–872.

27.

Hemida

Baker

. Large-eddy simulation of the flow around a freight wagon subjected to a crosswind. Comput Fluids 2010; 39: 1944–1956.

28.

Krajnović

Ringqvist

Nakade

, et al. Large eddy simulation of the flow around a simplified train moving through a crosswind flow. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2012; 110: 86–99.

29.

Rezvani

Mohebbi

. Numerical calculations of aerodynamic performance for ATM train at crosswind conditions. Wind Struct 2014; 18: 529–548.

30.

Dorigatti

Sterling

Baker

, et al. Crosswind effects on the stability of a model passenger train—a comparison of static and moving experiments. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2015; 138: 36–51.

31.

Premoli

Rocchi

Schito

, et al. Comparison between steady and moving railway vehicles subjected to crosswind by CFD analysis. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2016; 156: 29–40.

32.

Niu

Zhou

Wang

. Numerical comparison of aerodynamic performance of stationary and moving trains with or without windbreak wall under crosswind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2018; 182: 1–15.

33.

Broniszewski

Piechna

. A fully coupled analysis of unsteady aerodynamics impact on vehicle dynamics during braking. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 2019; 13: 623–641.

34.

Dong

. Numerical investigation of unsteady flow past rudimentary landing gear using DDES, LES and URANS. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 2018; 12: 689–710.

35.

Fintelman

Hemida

Sterling

, et al. A numerical investigation of the flow around a motorbike when subjected to crosswinds. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 2015; 9: 528–542.

36.

Tschepe

Fischer

Nayeri

, et al. Investigation of high-speed train drag with towing tank experiments and CFD. Flow Turbul Combust 2018.

37.

Wang

Burton

Herbst

, et al. The effect of bogies on high-speed train slipstream and wake. J Fluids Struct 2018; 83: 471–489.

38.

Chen

Liu

, et al. Dynamic analysis of the effect of nose length on train aerodynamic performance. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2019; 184: 198–208.

39.

Wang

Zhang

, et al. Impact of bogie cavity shapes and operational environment on snow accumulating on the bogies of high-speed trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2018; 176: 211–224.

40.

Gao

, et al. Investigation of bogie positions on the aerodynamic drag and near wake structure of a high-speed train. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2019; 185: 41–53.

41.

CEN European Standard. Railway applications-aerodynamics. Part 6: Requirements and test procedures for cross wind assessment, CEN EN 14067-6, 2010.

42.

Hemida

Krajnović

. Exploring flow structures around a simplified ICE2 train subjected to a 30 side wind using LES. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 2009; 3: 28–41.

43.

Tomasini

Giappino

Corradi

. Experimental investigation of the effects of embankment scenario on railway vehicle aerodynamic coefficients. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2014; 131: 59–71.

44.

Eichinger

Sima

Thiele

. Numerical simulation of a regional train in cross-wind. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2015; 229: 625–634.

45.

https://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Turbulence_intensity .

46.

Russo

Basse

. Scaling of turbulence intensity for low-speed flow in smooth pipes. Flow Meas Instrum 2016; 52: 101–114.

47.

ANSYS Inc. ANSYS fluent theory guide. Canonsburg, PA: ANSYS Inc., 2016.

48.

Niu

Wang

Zhou

. Effect of the outer windshield schemes on aerodynamic characteristics around the car-connecting parts and train aerodynamic performance. Mech Syst Signal Process 2019; 130: 1–16.

49.

Hughes

Ghani

. A numerical investigation into the effect of windvent dampers on operating conditions. Build Environ 2009; 44: 237–248.

50.

Niu

Wang

Zhang

, et al. Numerical analysis of aerodynamic characteristics of high-speed train with different train nose lengths. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2018; 127: 188–199.

51.

Hunt JC, Wray AA and Moin P. Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows. Center for Turbulent Research Report CTR-S88, 193–208, 1988.

52.

Niu

Wang

Liu

, et al. Numerical study on the effect of a downstream braking plate on the detailed flow field and unsteady aerodynamic characteristics of an upstream braking plate with or without a crosswind. Veh Syst Dyn 2020.

53.

Soper

Gillmeier

Baker

, et al. Aerodynamic forces on railway acoustic barriers. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2019; 191: 266–278.