A comparison of crosswind calculations using a full vehicle and a simplified 2D model

Abstract

High-speed vehicles are exposed to crosswinds that can result in the overturning of the vehicle. As part of the vehicle homologation process, the characteristic wind curve (CWC) must be calculated to determine the maximum vehicle velocity under different wind conditions. European Standard EN 14067-6 presents different approaches for studying this matter, from a two-dimensional (2D) model to a full multi-body model. The key to the problem rests in the uncertainties inherent in a multi-body model: characterizing its suspension elements and obtaining its aerodynamic coefficients. This paper compares a 2D model with a multi-body model of the same vehicle, and presents the advantages and disadvantages of each one. Results show that a 2D model is valid for graphing the CWC and sufficient for studying the basics of the overturning process. Furthermore, a wheel unloading time signal is also studied. It is concluded that the simplification process can modify the transitory response but that the maximum wheel unloading remains constant. Finally, a study of the wheel/rail contact is performed to check if the contact model has an influence on the calculation of the CWCs.

Keywords

crosswind stability train overturning overturning risk simplified models multi-body simulations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC). Strategic rail research agenda 2020, 2007, available from http://www.errac.org/IMG/pdf/SRRA-2007.pdf (access date 31 March 2011).

Baker

C. J.

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

Baker

C. J.

Ground vehicles in high cross winds. Part I: steady aerodynamic forces. J. Fluids Struct, 1991, 5, 569–590.

Baker

C. J.

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

Diedrichs

Aerodynamic crosswind stability of a regional train model. Proc. IMechE, Part F: J. Rail Rapid Transit, 2010, 224(6), 580–591.

Diedrichs

Ekequist

Stichel

Tengstrand

Quasi-static modelling of wheel–rail reactions due to crosswind effects for various types of high-speed rolling stock. Proc. IMechE, Part F: J. Rail Rapid Transit, 2004, 218, 133–148.

Wetzel

Proppe

On reliability and sensivity methods for vehicle systems under stochastic crosswind loads. Veh. Syst. Dyn., 2010, 48(1), 79–95.

Thomas

Diedrichs

Berg

Stichel

Dynamics of a high-speed rail vehicle negotiating curves at unsteady crosswind. Proc. IMechE, Part F: J. Rail Rapid Transit, 2010, 224(6), 567–579.

Thomas

Berg

Stichel

Measurements and simulations of rail vehicle dynamics with respect to overturning risk. Veh. Syst. Dyn., 2010, 48(1), 97–112.

10.

Y. L.

Ding

Q. S.

Interaction of railway vehicles with track in cross-winds. J. Fluids Struct., 2006, 22, 295–314.

11.

EN 14067-6:2010 Railway applications - aerodynamics - part 6: requirements and test procedures for cross wind assessment.

12.

Simpack

AG.

SIMPACK reference guide, 2008, available from www.simpack.de (access date 31 March 2011).

13.

Carrarini

Efficient models and techniques for the computational analysis of railway vehicles in crosswinds. Veh. Syst. Dyn., 2008, 46(1), 77–86.