A model-scale study to assess the influence of ground geometries on aerodynamic flow development around a train

Abstract

The need for interoperability for rail operators across Europe has resulted in the development of the technical specifications for interoperability: requirements and regulations which include safety limits for train aerodynamics. Safety limits are calculated within guidelines, including environmental conditions, train speeds and ballast shoulder height. However, there are many cases on the European rail network which fall outside ballast shoulder height limits, raising questions about the suitability of the technical specifications for interoperability limits, where European homologation is a requirement. Ballast is a layer of crushed stone onto which the railway track is laid; a ballast shoulder is defined from the top of the ballast layer to the base of the track foundation or ground. This paper describes the detailed model-scale experiments carried out at the University of Birmingham’s moving model TRAIN rig facility to assess the influence of ground geometries on aerodynamic flow development around a train. The technical specifications for interoperability methodology was questioned in relation to whether modest changes to include a wider cross-section of ballast shoulder heights, more appropriate to actual operating conditions, would affect limit values in relation to safety. The influence of ballast shoulder height was investigated for three typical train types. The results showed a similar static pressure development for all the ballast shoulder heights tested. Passenger train results indicated that shallow ballast shoulders confine the aerodynamic flow within a smaller area, increasing the magnitude of slipstream velocities in respect to larger ballast shoulders. The largest slipstream velocities were found for the ground configuration with no ballast shoulder modelled. Measurements within the technical specifications for interoperability-specified range of ballast shoulder heights exhibited little difference in flow development. Analysis of maximum 1 s gusts, calculated using the current technical specifications for interoperability methodology, found values lie close to, but do not break, the existing limits. Increasing ballast shoulder height was shown to decrease values away from technical specifications for interoperability limits.

Keywords

Train aerodynamics slipstream velocities pressure coefficient experimental study model scale high-speed passenger train freight train

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

TSI. COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1302/2014 concerning a technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock – locomotives and passenger rolling stock subsystem of the rail system in the European Union. Technical report, Official Journal of the European Union, 2014.

Bell

Burton

Thompson

et al.

Wind tunnel analysis of the slipstream and wake of a high-speed train. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2014; 134: 122–138.

CEN European Standard. EN 14067-4 railway applications – aerodynamics part 4: requirements and test procedures for aerodynamics on open track. Technical report, CEN, 2009.

CEN European Standard. EN 14067-6 Railway applications – aerodynamics part 6: requirements and test procedures for cross wind assessment. Technical report, CEN, 2010.

Baker

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

Muld

Efraimsson

Henningson

. Flow structures around a high-speed train extracted using proper orthogonal decomposition and dynamic mode decomposition. Comput Fluids 2012; 57: 87–97.

Mancini

Malfatti

Full scale measurements on high speed train ETR 500 passing in open air and in tunnels of Italian high speed line. In: Schulte-Werning

Grgoire

Malfatti

et al. (eds). TRANSAERO A European initiative on transient aerodynamics for railway system optimisation, volume 79 of Notes on numerical fluid mechanics and multidisciplinary design (NNFM), Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2002, pp. 101–122.

Sockel

. The aerodynamics of trains. In: Handbook of fluid dynamics and fluid machinery, New York: Wiley, 1996, pp. 1721–1741.

Sterling

Baker

Jordan

et al.

A study of the slipstreams of high-speed passenger trains and freight trains. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2008; 222: 177–193.

10.

Weise

Orellano

Schober

. Slipstream velocities induced by trains. WSEAS Trans Fluid Mech 2006; 1: 759–759.

11.

Baker

Dalley

Johnson

et al.

The slipstream and wake of a high-speed train. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2001; 215: 83–99.

12.

Baker

Jordan

Gilbert

et al.

Transient aerodynamic pressures and forces on trackside and overhead structures due to passing trains. Part 1 model scale experiments part 2 standards applications. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2012; 228: 37–70.

13.

Vardy AE , Sturt R, Baker CJ, et al. The behaviour of long entrance hoods for high speed rail tunnels. In: ISAVFT-2015. 16th International Symposium on Aerodynamics, Ventilation & Fire in Tunnels. Seattle, USA, 15–17 September 2015, Cranfield, UK: BHR Group, pp.449–466.

14.

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.

15.

TSI. COMMISSION DECISION of 21 February 2008 concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the rolling stock subsystem of the trans-European high-speed rail system. Technical report, Official Journal of the European Union, 2008.

16.

Soper

Baker

Sterling

. Experimental investigation of the slipstream development around a container freight train using a moving model facility. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2014; 135: 105–117.

17.

Alam F and Watkins S. Lateral stability of double stacked container wagon under crosswinds. In Proceedings of the international conference on mechanical engineering (ICME 2007), Dhaka, Bangladesh, 29–31 December 2007.

18.

Turbulent Flow Instrumentation (TFI) – cobra probe – getting started guide. Technical report, Turbulent Flow Instrumentation, 2011.

19.

Soper D. The aerodynamics of a container freight train. PhD Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, 2014.

20.

Dorigatti F. Rail vehicles in crosswinds: analysis of steady and unsteady aerodynamic effects through static and moving model tests. PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham, UK, 2013.

21.

Gilbert

Baker

Quinn

. Gusts caused by high-speed trains in confined spaces and tunnels. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2013; 121: 39–48.

22.

Baker

Quinn

Sima

et al.

Full-scale measurement and analysis of train slipstreams and wakes. Part 1: ensemble averages. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2014; 228: 451–467.

23.

Temple J and Johnson T. Effective management of risk from slipstream effects at trackside and on platforms. Technical report, A report produced for Rail Safety and Standards Board, August 2008.

24.

Hemida

Gil

Baker

. LES of the slipstream of a rotating train. J Fluids Eng 2010; 132: 051103–051103.

25.

Muld TW. Analysis of flow structures in wake flows for train aerodynamics. Technical report, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanics, SE-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden, 2010.