Effect of different typical high speed train pantograph recess configurations on aerodynamic noise

Abstract

For high-speed trains, the aerodynamic noise becomes an essential consideration in the train design. The pantograph and pantograph recess are recognised as important sources of aerodynamic noise. This paper studies the flow characteristics and noise contributions of three typical high-speed train roof configurations, namely a cavity, a ramped cavity and a flat roof with side insulation plates. The Improved Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation approach is used for the flow calculations and the Ffowcs Williams & Hawkings aeroacoustic analogy is used for far-field acoustic predictions. Simulations are presented for a simplified train body at 1/10 scale and 300 km/h with these three roof configurations. In each case, two simplified pantographs (one retracted and one raised) are located on the roof. Analysis of the flow fields obtained from numerical simulations clearly shows the influence of the train roof configuration on the flow behaviour, including flow separations, reattachment and vortex shedding, which are potential noise sources. A highly unsteady flow occurs downstream when the train roof has a cavity or ramped cavity due to flow separation at the cavity trailing edge, while vortical flow is generated by the side insulation plates. For the ramped cavity configuration, moderately large pressure fluctuations appear on the cavity outside walls in the upstream region due to unsteady flow from the upstream edge of the plate. The raised pantograph, roof cavity, and ramped cavity are identified as the dominant noise sources. When the retracted pantograph is located in the ramped roof cavity, its noise contribution is less important. Furthermore, the insulation plates also generate tonal components in the noise spectra. Of the three configurations considered, the roof cavity configuration radiates the least noise at the side receiver in terms of A-weighted level.

Keywords

High-speed train aeroacoustics pantograph pantograph recess cavity flow

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Thompson

DJ.

Railway noise and vibration: mechanisms, modelling and means of control. Oxford: Elsevier, 2008.

Talotte

Aerodynamic noise: a critical survey. J Sound and Vib 2000; 231: 549–562.

Talotte

Gautier

Thompson

, et al. Identification, modelling and reduction potential of railway noise sources: a critical survey. J Sound and Vib 2003; 267: 447–468.

Noh

Choi

Hong

, et al. Investigation of noise sources in high-speed trains. Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2014; 228: 307–322.

Lölgen

Wind tunnel noise measurements on full-scale pantograph models. J Acoust Soc AM 1999; 105: 1136–1136.

Grosche

Meier

Research at DLR Göttingen on bluff body aerodynamics, drag reduction by wake ventilation and active flow control. J Wind Eng Ind AEROD 2001; 89: 1201–1218.

Noger

Contribution á l’étude des phénoménes aéroacoustiques se développant dans la baignoire et autour des pantographes du TGV. Approches expérimentale et numérique des écoulements affleurant une cavité et s non-linéaires de sillage entre deux cylindres. Ph.D. Thesis, University in Poitiers, Poitiers, France, 1999.

Kurita

Hara

Yamada

, et al. Reduction of pantograph noise of high-speed trains. Jmtl 2010; 3: 63–74.

Anderson

Jr.

Fundamentals of aerodynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2010.

10.

Spalart

Deck

Shur

, et al. A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theoret Comput Fluid Dynamics 2006; 20: 181–195.

11.

Spalart

PR.

Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations. Eng turb modelling and experiments. 1999; 4: 3–17.

12.

Shur

Spalart

Strelets

, et al. A hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and wall-modelled LES capabilities. Int J Heat Fluid Fl 2008; 29: 1638–1649.

13.

Lighthill

MJ.

On sound generated aerodynamically I. General theory. P Roy Soc Lond A – Math Phy 1107; 211: 564–587. 1952;

14.

Dowling

Williams

JF.

Sound and sources of sound. Chichester: J. Wiley and Sons, 1983.

15.

Ffowcs Williams

Hawkings

DL.

Sound generation by turbulence and surfaces in arbitrary motion. Philos T R Soc Lond A-Math Phy 1969; 264: 321–342.

16.

Spalart

PR.

Detached-eddy simulation. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 2009; 41: 181–202.

17.

Hövelmann

Aerodynamic investigations of noise-reducing high-lift systems for passenger transport aircraft. Diploma Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2011.

18.

Lockard

Choudhari

O’Connell

, et al. Noise simulations of the high-lift common research model. In 23rd AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference 2017. pp. 3362. Denver: AIAA.

19.

Wen

Numerical investigation of landing gear noise. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Southampton, UK, 2011.

20.

Spalart

Shur

Strelets

, et al. Towards noise prediction for rudimentary landing gear. Procedia Eng 2010; 6: 283–292.

21.

Greschner

Thiele

Jacob

, et al. Prediction of sound generated by a rod-airfoil configuration using EASM DES and the generalised Lighthill/FW-H analogy. Computers Fluids 2008; 37: 402–413.

22.

Glegg

Devenport

Aeroacoustics of low Mach number flows: fundamentals, analysis, and measurement. London: Academic Press, 2017.

23.

Paradot

Masson

Poisson

, et al. Aero-acoustic methods for high-speed train noise prediction. In: Proceedings of the World Congress in Railway Research (WCRR), Seoul, Korea, 2008.

24.

Zhu

Thompson

DJ.

The flow and flow-induced noise behaviour of a simplified high-speed train bogie in the cavity with and without a fairing. Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2018; 232: 759–773.

25.

Lockard

Choudhari

Noise radiation from a leading-edge slat. In: 15th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference, 2009. p. 3101.

26.

Liu

Kim

Zhang

, et al. Landing-gear noise prediction using high-order finite difference schemes. J. Sound and Vib 2013; 332: 3517–3534. 8

27.

Wang

Fattah

Angland

, et al. High-order hybrid cell-centered method for computational aeroacoustics. In: 21st AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference. 2015. p. 3279.

28.

Iglesias

Thompson

Smith

MG.

Component-based model to predict aerodynamic noise from high-speed train pantographs. J Sound Vib 2017; 394: 280–305.

29.

Zhu

Hemida

Flynn

, et al. Numerical simulation of the slipstream and aeroacoustic field around a high-speed train. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2017; 231: 740–756.

30.

Brentner

Farassat

An analytical comparison of the acoustic analogy and Kirchhoff formulation for moving surfaces. In: The American helicopter society 53rd annual forum, Virginia Beach, United States, 29 April–1 May, 1997.

31.

Brentner

Farassat

Modeling aerodynamically generated sound of helicopter rotors. Prog Aerosp Sci 2003; 39: 83–120.

32.

Kim

Thompson

DJ.

Effect of cavity flow control on high-speed train pantograph and roof aerodynamic noise. Rail Eng Sci 2020; 5: 1–21.

33.

Kim

Thompson

DJ.

Numerical investigation of the effect of cavity flow on high speed train pantograph aerodynamic noise. J Wind Eng Ind Aero 2020; 201: 104159.

34.

Cooper

RD.

Hydrodynamic noise, cavity flow. Office of Naval Research, 1960.

35.

Lazos

Surface topology on the wheels of a generic four-wheel landing gear. Aiaa J 2002; 40: 2402–2411.

36.

Carbral

Leedom

LC.

Imaging vector fields using line integral convolution. In: Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, Anaheim, United States, 1 Aug–6 Aug 1992. pp.263–270. Washington: USDOE

37.

Perry

Chong

MS.

A description of eddying motions and flow patterns using critical-point concepts. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 1987; 19: 125–155.

38.

Kim

Thompson

DJ.

Numerical investigation of the effect of various high-speed train roof configurations on aerodynamic noise. In: 25th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference 2019. p. 2645.

39.

Morfey

Sandham

ND.

Wall pressure and shear stress spectra from direct simulations of channel flow. Aiaa J 2006; 44: 1541–1549.

40.

Iida

Otaguro

Nagarekawa

, et al. Similarity law of aerodynamic noise generation. In: 6th AIAA aeroacoustics conference and exhibit conference, Lahaina, United States, 12 June–14 June 2000, pp.2000–2012.