Wind tunnel tests for trains under large yaw angles are usually limited due to the width of the wind tunnel. Therefore, the leading car and a downstream dummy vehicle model are often employed instead of a real train, but there are no clear regulations regarding the shape of the end of the dummy vehicle. This paper studied the impact of the trailing edge shape of the downstream dummy vehicle on train aerodynamics subjected to crosswind based on the shear-stress-transport k-ω turbulence model of the delayed detached eddy simulation. Three types of end shapes, namely the rectangular end shape, the arc end shape, and the streamlined end shape were chosen for comparison, and the simulation results of the three-car-group train were selected as the benchmark. First, the reliability of the numerical method was validated by wind tunnel tests. Then, the aerodynamic coefficients under yaw angles of 0°–60° and the surface pressure distributions and flow structures around the train under the yaw angle of 60° of the head cars with different end shapes were compared and analyzed.
BakerC. A framework for the consideration of the effects of crosswinds on trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2013; 123: 130–142.
2.
TomasiniGCheliF. Admittance function to evaluate aerodynamic loads on vehicles: experimental data and numerical model. J Fluids Struct2013; 38: 92–106.
3.
KrajnovićSRingqvistPNakadeK, et al.Large eddy simulation of the flow around a simplified train moving through a crosswind flow. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2012; 110: 86–99.
4.
WetzelCProppeC. On reliability and sensitivity methods for vehicle systems under stochastic crosswind loads. Veh Syst Dyn2010; 48: 79–95.
5.
LiuTHZhangJ. Effect of landform on aerodynamic performance of high-speed trains in cutting under cross wind. J Cent South Univ2013; 20: 830–836.
6.
ChenZWLiuTHJiangZH, et al.Comparative analysis of the effect of different nose lengths on train aerodynamic performance under crosswind. J Fluids Struct2018; 78: 69–85.
7.
Matschke G and Heine C. Full scale tests on side wind effects on trains. Evaluation of aerodynamic coefficients and efficiency of wind breaking devices. In: TRANSAERO-a European initiative on transient aerodynamics for railway system optimization 2002; 79: 27–38.
8.
CheliFCorradiRSabbioniE, et al.Wind tunnel tests on heavy road vehicles: cross wind induced loads – part 1. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2011; 99: 1000–1010.
9.
DorigattiFSterlingMBakerCJ, et al.Crosswind effects on the stability of a model passenger train—a comparison of static and moving experiments. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2015; 138: 36–51.
10.
SimaMEichingerSBlancoA, et al.Computational fluid dynamics simulation of rail vehicles in crosswind: application in norms and standards. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2015; 229: 635–643.
11.
LiuTHChenZWZhouXS, et al.A CFD analysis of the aerodynamics of a high-speed train passing through a windbreak transition under crosswind. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech2017; 12: 137–151.
12.
GallagherMMordenJBakerC, et al.Trains in crosswinds – comparison of full-scale on-train measurements, physical model tests and CFD calculations. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018; 175: 428–444.
13.
ZhangJHeKXiongX, et al.Numerical simulation with a DES approach for a high-speed train subjected to the crosswind. Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech2017; 10: 1329–1342.
14.
Baker CJ. The wind tunnel determination of crosswind forces and moments on a high-speed train. In: TRANSAERO-a European initiative on transient aerodynamics for railway system optimization 2002; 79: 46–60.
15.
BoccioloneMCheliFCorradiR, et al.Crosswind action on rail vehicles: wind tunnel experimental analyses. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2008; 96: 584–610.
16.
ChenTYLiouLR. Blockage corrections in wind tunnel tests of small horizontal-axis wind turbines. Exp Therm Fluid Sci2011; 35: 565–569.
17.
NiuJQLiangXFZhouD. Experimental study on the effect of Reynolds number on aerodynamic performance of high-speed train with and without yaw angle. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2016; 157: 36–46.
18.
YuS. Wind tunnel study on vortex-induced Helmholtz resonance excited by oblique flow. Exp Therm Fluid Sci2016; 74: 207–219.
19.
LooseSRichardHBosbachJ, et al.Optical measurement technique for high Reynolds number train investigations. Exp Fluids2006; 40: 643–653.
20.
BakerCJBrockieNJ. Wind tunnel tests to obtain train aerodynamic drag coefficients: Reynolds number and ground simulation effects. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn1991; 38: 23–28.
21.
WillemsenE. High Reynolds number wind tunnel experiments on trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn1997; 6971: 437–447.
22.
MordenJAHemidaHBakerCJ. Comparison of RANS and detached eddy simulation results to wind-tunnel data for the surface pressures upon a class 43 high-speed train. J Fluids Eng2015; 137: 041108-041108-9–041108-041108-9.
23.
SchoberMWeiseMOrellanoA, et al.Wind tunnel investigation of an ICE 3 end car on three standard ground scenarios. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2010; 98: 345–352.
24.
CheliFCorradiRRocchiD, et al.Wind tunnel tests on train scale models to investigate the effect of infrastructure scenario. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2010; 98: 353–362.
25.
KhierWBreuerMDurstF. Flow structure around trains under side wind conditions: a numerical study. Comput Fluids2000; 29: 179–195.
26.
YaoSBGuoDLSunZX, et al.Optimization design for aerodynamic elements of high speed trains. Comput Fluids2014; 95: 56–73.
27.
ZhangLYangMZLiangXF. Experimental study on the effect of wind angles on pressure distribution of train streamlined zone and train aerodynamic forces. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018; 174: 330–343.
28.
CEN European Standard, 2010. Railway applications-aerodynamics. Part 6: requirements and test procedures for cross wind assessment. CEN EN 14067-6.
29.
SicotCDeliancourtFBoreeJ, et al.Representativeness of geometrical details during wind tunnel tests. Application to train aerodynamics in crosswind conditions. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018; 177: 186–196.
30.
CheliFRipamontiFRocchiD, et al.Aerodynamic behaviour investigation of the new EMUV250 train to cross wind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2010; 98: 189–201.
31.
WangSYInghamDBMaL, et al.Numerical investigations on dynamic stall of low Reynolds number flow around oscillating airfoils. Comput Fluids2010; 39: 1529–1541.
32.
SpalartPRJouWHStreletsM, et al.Comments on the feas1ibility of LES for wings, and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach. Advances in DNS/LES1997; 1: 4–8.
33.
MuldTWEfraimssonGDanSH. Flow structures around a high-speed train extracted using proper orthogonal decomposition and dynamic mode decomposition. Comput Fluids2012; 57: 87–97.
34.
FlynnDHemidaHBakerC. On the effect of crosswinds on the slipstream of a freight train and associated effects. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2016; 156: 14–28.
35.
NiuJQZhouDWangYM. Numerical comparison of aerodynamic performance of stationary and moving trains with or without windbreak wall under crosswind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018; 182: 1–15.
36.
LiXFZhouDJiaLR, et al.Effects of yaw angle on the unsteady aerodynamic performance of the pantograph of a high-speed train under crosswind. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018; 182: 49–60.
37.
YanNJChenXZLiYL. Assessment of overturning risk of high-speed trains in strong crosswinds using spectral analysis approach. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2018; 174: 103–118.
38.
Muñoz-PaniaguaJGarcíaJ. Aerodynamic surrogate-based optimization of the nose shape of a high-speed train for crosswind and passing-by scenarios. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2019; 184: 139–152.
39.
DengEYangWCLeiMF, et al.Aerodynamic loads and traffic safety of high-speed trains when passing through two windproof facilities under crosswind: a comparative study. Eng Struct2019; 188: 320–339.
40.
BakerCJJonesJLopez-CallejaF, et al.Measurements of the cross wind forces on trains. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn2004; 92: 547–563.
