Numerical simulations of the separated flow around a freight train passing through a tunnel using the sliding mesh technique

Abstract

The main aim of this investigation is to analyse the flow around a freight train as it passes through a tunnel. The separated flow around the train nose is related to energy losses, lateral vibration, noise and streamline deviation, and it also influences the velocity magnitudes around the train. Such effects are expected to become more important with the prospect of increasing freight train speeds. The numerical simulations performed in this study use a Class 66 locomotive connected to eight container wagons, scaled to 1/25th, moving at a train speed of 33.5 m/s through a tunnel with a blockage ratio of 0.202. The k–ω model combined with a high advection scheme solves the governing equations on a structured hexahedral mesh using the sliding mesh technique. The pressure histories at the tunnel walls and train surface as well as the velocity field around the train were validated with experimental data obtained using a moving model. The longest separation bubble is found at the middle-height and middle-width of the locomotive due to extended corners at these regions. When the train enters the tunnel, the separation length is reduced by 32% at the roof and 31% at the sides, compared to open air. The maximum separation length is found at the sides of the train where it reattaches at 19% of the locomotive length, influencing the velocity peak at a short distance from the train surface. The larger the separation length, the higher the length/duration of this peak. When the train head is halfway through the tunnel, the nose velocity peak reduces by 30% compared to open air. The position of the nose inside the tunnel affects not only the slipstream velocity but also the velocity field at the tunnel portal and exit. These novel findings can be used as a benchmark for designing new freight train and tunnel shapes.

Keywords

Computational fluid dynamics sliding-mesh Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes flow separation compression wave train aerodynamics k–ω shear stress transport

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Flynn

Hemida

Soper

, et al. Detacched-eddy simulation of the slipstream of an operational freight train. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2014; 132: 1–12.

Soper

Baker

Sterling

. An experimental investigation to assess the influence of container loading configuration on the effects of a crosswind on a container freight train. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2015; 145: 304–317.

Baker

. A review of train aerodynamics, Part 1: fundamentals. Aeronaut J 2014, pp. 118–118.

Kikuchi

Lida

Fukuda

. Optimization of train nose shape for reducing micro-pressure wave radiated from tunnel exit. J Low Freq Noise Vib Active Control 2011; 30: 1–19.

Yoon

Lee

Hwang

, et al. Prediction and validation on the sonic boom by a high-speed train entering a tunnel. J Sound Vib 2001; 247: 195–211.

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.

CEN. Railway applications - Aerodynamics. Part 3: Aerodynamics in tunnels. BSI Standards Limited, 2003.

Ricco

Barron

Molteni

. Nature of pressure waves induced by a high-speed train travelling through a tunnel. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2007; 95: 781–808.

Chen

Hoe

, et al. Field measurements of aerodynamic pressures in tunnels induced by high speed trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2012; 100: 19–29.

10.

William-Louis

Tournier

. A wave signature based method for the prediction of pressure transients in railway tunnels. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2005; 93: 521–531.

11.

CEN. EN 14067-5: 2006+A1: 2010 railway applications – aerodynamics, part 5: requirements and test procedures for aerodynamics in tunnels. CEN, 2010.

12.

Baker

. A review of train aerodynamics, Part 2: applications. Aeronaut J 2014, pp. 118–118.

13.

Vardy

. Aerodynamic drag on trains in tunnels, part 1: synthesis and definitions. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 1996; 210: 29–38.

14.

Vardy

. Aerodynamic drag on trains in tunnels, part 2: prediction and validation. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 1996; 210: 39–49.

15.

Curie

. Fundamental mechanics of fluids, 4th ed. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Inc., CRC Press Inc, 2012.

16.

Singh

Sarkar

. DNS of a laminar separation bubble. Int J Mech Mechatron Eng 2011; 5: 1757–1761.

17.

Chang

. Separation of flow. J Franklin Inst 1961, pp. 272–272.

18.

Bushnell

Moore

. Drag reduction in nature. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 1991; 23: 65–79.

19.

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

20.

Jahanmiri M. Laminar separation bubble: its structure, dynamics and control. Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 2011.

21.

Diwan

Ramesh

. Laminar separation bubbles: dynamics and control. Sadhana 2007; 32: 103–109.

22.

Kim

Moin

. Application of a fractional-step method to incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. J Comput Phys 1985; 59: 308–323.

23.

Kiya

Sasaki

. Free-stream turbulence effects on a separation bubble. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1983; 14: 375–386.

24.

Arakeri

Acosta

. Viscous effects in the inception of cavitaton on axisymmetric bodies. J Fluids Eng 1973; 95: 519–527.

25.

Samson A, Sarkar S and Anand K. Experimental investigation of a separation bubble on a flat plate with semi-circular leading edge for different Reynolds numbers. In: 9th international conference on heat transfer, fluid mechanics and thermodynamics, Malta, 2012.

26.

Bokhortst

Kat

Elsinga

, et al. Feather roughness reduces flow separation during low Reynolds number glides of swifts. J Exp Biol 2015; 218: 3179–3191.

27.

Sajben

. Fluid mechanics of train-tunnel systems in unsteady motion. AIAA J 1970; 9: 1538–1545.

28.

Zhang

Yang

Liang

, et al. Oblique tunnel portal effects on train and tunnel aerodynamics based on moving model tests. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2017; 167: 128–139.

29.

Flynn

Hemida

Baker

. On the effect of crosswinds on the slipstream of a freight train and associated effects. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2016; 156: 14–28.

30.

Khayrullina

Blocken

Janssen

, et al. CFD simulation of train aerodynamics: train-induced wind conditions at an underground railroad passenger platform. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2015; 139: 100–110.

31.

Huang

Hong

Kim

. A numerical simulation of train induced unsteady airflow in a tunnel of Seoul subway. J Mech Sci Technol 2012; 26: 785–792.

32.

Araujo

Rezende

. Comparison of turbulence models in the flow over a backward-facing step. Int J Eng Res Sci 2017, pp. 3–3.

33.

Hemida

Krajnovic

. LES study of the influence of the nose shape and yaw angles on flow structures around trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2010; 98: 34–46.

34.

Iliadis

Soper

Baker

, et al. Experimental investigation of the aerodynamics of a freight train passing through a tunnel using a moving model. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2019; 233: 857–868.

35.

Johnson T and Dalley S. 1/25 scale moving model tests for the TRANSAERO Project. In: Schulte-Werning B, Grégoire R, Malfatti A and Matschke G (eds) TRANSAERO – a European initiative on transient aerodynamics for railway system optimisation. Notes Numer Fluid Mech Multidisc Des 2002; 79: 123–135.

36.

ANSYS. CFX modelling guide. Release 162. Cary, NC: SAS IP, Inc., 2015.

37.

Liu

Hemida

Liu

. Large eddy simulation of the flow around a train passing a stationary freight wagon. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2014; 228: 535–545.

38.

TSI. Commission Regulation (EU) No 1302/2014 2 of 18 November 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. Official Journal of the European Union, 2014.

39.

Moussaed

Salvetti

Wornom

, et al. Simulation of the flow past a circular cylinder in the supercritical regime by blending RANS and variational-multiscale LES models. J Fluids Struct 2014; 47: 114–123.

40.

Temple J and Johnson T. Effective management of risk from slipstream effects at trackside and platforms. Technical Report: A Report Produced for Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2008.

41.

Sterling

Baker

Jordan

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

42.

Sturm

Dumstorff

Busche

, et al. Boundary layer separation and reattachment detection on airfoils by thermal flow sensors. Sensors 2012; 12: 14292–14306.

43.

Jovic S. An experimental study of a separated/reattached flow behind a backward-facing step. NASA Technical Memorandum 110384. Eloret Institute, Ames Research Center, Moffet Field, NASA, California, USA, 1996.

44.

Driver

Seegmiller

Marvin

. Time-dependent behavior of a reattaching shear layer. AIAA J 1987; 25: 914–919.

45.

Neumann J. On time-dependent behaviour of controlled turbulent flow with separation and reattachment. In: PAMM proceedings in applied mathematics and mechanics, Berlin, December 2003, pp.44–47.

46.

Soper

Baker

Sterling

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

47.

Baker

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