The numerical simulation based on Reynolds time-averaged equation is one of the approved methods to evaluate the aerodynamic performance of trains in crosswind. However, there are several turbulence models, trains may present different aerodynamic performances in crosswind using different turbulence models. In order to select the most suitable turbulence model, the inter-city express 2 (ICE2) model is chosen as a research object, 6 different turbulence models are used to simulate the flow characteristics, surface pressure and aerodynamic forces of the train in crosswind, respectively. 6 turbulence models are the standard k-ε, Renormalization Group (RNG) k-ε, Realizable k-ε, Shear Stress Transport (SST) k-ω, standard k-ω and Spalart–Allmaras (SPA), respectively. The numerical results and the wind tunnel experimental data are compared. The results show that the most accurate model for predicting the surface pressure of the train is SST k-ω, followed by Realizable k-ε. Compared with the experimental result, the error of the side force coefficient obtained by SST k-ω and Realizable k-ε turbulence model is less than 1 %. The most accurate prediction for the lift force coefficient is achieved by SST k-ω, followed by RNG k-ε. By comparing 6 different turbulence models, the SST k-ω model is most suitable for the numerical simulation of the aerodynamic behavior of trains in crosswind.
The numerical simulation based on Reynolds time-averaged equation is one of the approved methods to evaluate the aerodynamic performance of trains in crosswind. However, there are several turbulence models, trains may present different aerodynamic performances in crosswind using different turbulence models. In order to select the most suitable turbulence model, the inter-city express 2 (ICE2) model is chosen as a research object, 6 different turbulence models are used to simulate the flow characteristics, surface pressure and aerodynamic forces of the train in crosswind, respectively. 6 turbulence models are the standard k-ε, Renormalization Group (RNG) k-ε, Realizable k-ε, Shear Stress Transport (SST) k-ω, standard k-ω and Spalart–Allmaras (SPA), respectively. The numerical results and the wind tunnel experimental data are compared. The results show that the most accurate model for predicting the surface pressure of the train is SST k-ω, followed by Realizable k-ε. Compared with the experimental result, the error of the side force coefficient obtained by SST k-ω and Realizable k-ε turbulence model is less than 1 %. The most accurate prediction for the lift force coefficient is achieved by SST k-ω, followed by RNG k-ε. By comparing 6 different turbulence models, the SST k-ω model is most suitable for the numerical simulation of the aerodynamic behavior of trains in crosswind.
[1] N J Yan, X Z Chen, Y L Li. Assessment of overturning risk of high-speed trains in strong crosswinds using spectral analysis approach. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2018, 174:103-118.
[2] T Li, M G Yu, J Y Zhang, et al. A Fast Equilibrium State Approach to Determine Interaction between stochastic crosswinds and High-speed Trains. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2015, 143:91-104.
[3] M G Yu, J L Liu, D W Liu, et al. Investigation of aerodynamic effects on the high-speed train exposed to longitudinal and lateral wind velocities. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2016, 61:347-361.
[4] Y Ding, M Sterlings, C J Baker. An alternative approach to modelling train stability in high cross winds. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F-Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 2008, 222(1):85-97.
[5] C Baker. The flow around high speed trains. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2010, 98:277-298.
[6] M Wang, X Z Li, J Xiao, et al. An experimental analysis of the aerodynamic characteristics of a high-speed train on a bridge under crosswinds. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2018, 177:92-100.
[7] Z W Chen, T H Liu, Z H Jiang. Comparative analysis of the effect of different nose lengths on train aerodynamic performance under crosswind. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2018, 78:69-85.
[8] L Zhang, J Zhang, T Li, et al. A multi-objective aerodynamic optimization design of a high-speed train head under crosswinds. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F:Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 2017, 232(3):895-912.
[9] S Huang, H Hemida, M Yang. Numerical calculation of the slipstream generated by a crh2 high-speed train. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F:Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 2016, 230(1):103-116.
[10] F Dorigatti, M Sterling, C J Baker, et al. Crosswind effects on the stability of a model passenger train-a comparison of static and moving experiments. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2015, 138:36-51.
[11] T Li, J Y Zhang, W H Zhang. A numerical approach to the interaction between airflow and a high-speed train subjected to crosswind. Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A, 2013, 14(7):482-493.
[12] M G Yu, J Y Zhang, W H Zhang. Multi-objective optimization design method of the high-speed train head. Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A, 2013, 14(9):631-641.
[13] B Diedrichs, M Sima, A Orellano, et al. Crosswind stability of a high-speed train on a high embankment. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F:Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 2007, 221(2):205-225.
[14] F Cheli, F Ripamonti, D Rocchi, et al. Aerodynamic behaviour investigation of the new EMUV250 train to cross wind. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2010, 98(4):189-201.
[15] T Li, M Li, Z Wang, et al. Effect of the inter-car gap length on the aerodynamic characteristics of a high-speed train. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F-Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 2019, 233(4):448-465.
[16] B Diedrichs. Aerodynamic calculations of crosswind stability of a high-speed train using control volumes of arbitrary polyhedral shape. BBAA VI International Colloquium on:Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics and Applications, Milano, Italy, 2008.
[17] J A Morden, H Hemida, C J Baker. Comparison of RANS and detached-eddy simulation results to wind-tunnel data for the surface pressures upon a class 43 high-speed train. Journal of Fluids Engineering-Transactions of the ASME, 2015, 137(4):041108.
[18] H Hemida, C J Baker. Large-eddy simulation of the flow around a freight wagon subjected to a crosswind. Computers and Fluids, 2010, 39(10):1944-1956.
[19] H Hemida, S Krajnovic. Exploring flow structures around a simplified ICE2 train subjected to a 30 degrees side wind using LES. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 2009, 3(1):28-41.
[20] S Krajnovic, P Ringqvist, K Nakade, et al. Large eddy simulation of the flow around a simplified train moving through a crosswind flow. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2012, 110:86-99.
[21] S B Yao, Z X Sun, D L Guo, et al. Numerical study on wake characteristics of high-speed trains. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 2013, 29(6):811-822.
[22] J Zhang, J J Li, H Tian, et al. Impact of ground and wheel boundary conditions on numerical simulation of the high-speed train aerodynamic performance. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 2016, 61:249-261.
[23] C Fu, M Uddin, A C Robinson. Turbulence modelling effects on the CFD predictions of flow over a NASCAR Gen 6 racecar. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2018, 176:98-111.
[24] F Gao, H D Wang, H Wang. Comparison of different turbulence models in simulating unsteady flow. Procedia Engineering, 2017, 205:3970-3977.
[25] S B Wang, R B James, B David, et al. The performance of different turbulence models (URANS, SAS and DES) for predicting high-speed train slipstream. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2017, 165:46-57.
[26] J Munoz-Paniagua, J García, B Lehugeur. Evaluation of RANS, SAS and IDDES models for the simulation of the flow around a high-speed train subjected to crosswind. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2017, 171:50-66.
[27] H K Versteeg, W Malalsasekera. An introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics. Edinburgh:Pearson Education Limited, 2007.
[28] A Orellano, M Schober. Aerodynamic performance of a typical high-speed train. Proceedings of the 4th WSEAS International Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Aerodynamics, Elounda, August 21-23, 2006.
