Feasibility of replacing the 3-coach with a 1.5-coach grouping train model in wind tunnel experiment at different yaw angles

Abstract

The effects of different yaw angles on the aerodynamic performance of city electric multiple units (EMUs) were investigated in a wind tunnel using a 1:16.8 scaled model. Pressure scanning valve and six-component box-type aerodynamic balance were used to test the pressure distribution and aerodynamic force of the head car respectively from the 1.5- and 3-coach grouping city EMU models. Meanwhile, the effects of the yaw angles on the pressure distribution of the streamlined head as well as the aerodynamic forces of the train were analyzed. The experimental results showed that the pressure coefficient was the smallest at the maximum slope of the main shape-line. The side force coefficient and pressure coefficient along the head car cross-section were most affected by crosswind when the yaw angle was 55°, and replacing a 3-coach grouping with a 1.5-coach grouping had obvious advantages for wind tunnel testing when the yaw angle was within 24.2°. In addition, the relative errors of lift coefficient C_L, roll moment coefficient C_Mx, side force coefficient C_S, and drag coefficient C_D between the 1.5- and 3-coach cases were below 5.95%, which all met the requirements of the experimental accuracy.

Keywords

wind tunnel / electric multiple unit / pressure coefficient / yaw angle / scanning valve / 1.5-coach grouping

References

[1] NayeriC N, StrangfeldC, ZellmannC, et al.. The influence of wind tunnel grid turbulence on aerodynamic coefficients of trains [C]. The Aerodynamics of Heavy Vehicles III, 2016, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing, 133141

[2] DiedrichsB. On computational fluid dynamics modelling of crosswind effects for high-speed rolling stock [J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 2003, 217(3): 203-226

[3] ZhangJ, HeK, XiongX, et al.. Numerical simulation with a DES approach for a high-speed train subjected to the crosswind [J]. Journal of Applied Fluid Mechanics, 2017, 10(5): 1329-1342

[4] KwonH B, ParkY W, LeeD H, et al.. Wind tunnel experiments on Korean high-speed trains using various ground simulation techniques [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2001, 89(13): 1179-1195

[5] BakerC J, JonesJ, Lopez-CallejaF, et al.. Measurements of the cross wind forces on trains [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2004, 92(7–8): 547-563

[6] SuzukiM, TanemotoK, MaedaT. Aerodynamic characteristics of train/vehicles under cross winds [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2003, 91(1–2): 209-218

[7] DorigattiF, SterlingM, BakerC J, et al.. Crosswind effects on the stability of a model passenger train—A comparison of static and moving experiments [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2015, 138: 36-51

[8] GiappinoS, RocchiD, SchitoP, et al.. Cross wind and rollover risk on lightweight railway vehicles [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2016, 153: 106-112

[9] BoccioloneM, CheliF, CorradiR, et al.. Crosswind action on rail vehicles: Wind tunnel experimental analyses [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2008, 96(5): 584-610

[10] NiuJ-Q, LiangX-F, ZhouD. Experimental study on the effect of Reynolds number on aerodynamic performance of high-speed train with and without yaw angle [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2016, 157: 36-46

[11] ZhangL, YangM-Z, LiangX-F. Experimental study on the effect of wind angles on pressure distribution of train streamlined zone and train aerodynamic forces [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2018, 174: 330-343

[12] ZhouD, TianH-Q, ThompsonM, et al.. Numerical and experimental investigations of the flow around a high-speed train on an embankment under side wind conditions [C]. The Aerodynamics of Heavy Vehicles III, 2016, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing, 113130

[13] NiuJ-Q, ZhouD, LiangX-F. Experimental research on the aerodynamic characteristics of a high-speed train under different turbulence conditions [J]. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 2017, 80: 117-125

[14] CheliF, CorradiR, TomasiniG. Crosswind action on rail vehicles: A methodology for the estimation of the characteristic wind curves [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2012, 104–106: 248-255

[15] DingY, SterlingM, BakerC. An alternatiFe approach to modelling train stabiiity in high cross winds [J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 2008, 222(1): 85-97

[16] WetzelC, ProppeC. On reliability and sensitivity methods for vehicle systems under stochastic crosswind loads [J]. Vehicle System Dynamics, 2010, 48(1): 79-95

[17] HemidaH, BakerC, GaoG-J. The calculation of train slipstreams using large-eddy simulation [J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 2014, 228(1): 25-36

[18] HashmiS A, HemidaH, SoperD. Wind tunnel testing on a train model subjected to crosswinds with different windbreak walls [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2019, 195: 104013

[19] BS EN 14067-6. Railway applications — Aerodynamics. Part 6: Requirements and Test Procedures for Cross Wind Assessment [S]. 2013.

[20] HuangS, HemidaH, YangM-Z. Numerical calculation of the slipstream generated by a CRH2 high-speed train [J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 2016, 230(1): 103-116

[21] LUHAR M, SHARMA A S, MCKEON B J. A framework for studying the effect of compliant surfaces on wall turbulence [EB/OL]. 2014: arXiv: 1411.6690[physics. flu-dyn]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.6690.

[22] ScheweG, LarsenA. Reynolds number effects in the flow around a bluff bridge deck cross section [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1998, 74–76829-838

[23] BellJ R, BurtonD, ThompsonM, et al.. Wind tunnel analysis of the slipstream and wake of a high-speed train [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2014, 134: 122-138

[24] GJB1179A. Requirements for flow quality of low and high speed wind tunnels [S]. 2012. (in Chinese)

[25] ZhangJ, GaoG-J, LiuT-H, et al.. Crosswind stability of high-speed trains in special cuts [J]. Journal of Central South University, 2015, 22(7): 2849-2856

[26] FlynnD, HemidaH, BakerC. On the effect of crosswinds on the slipstream of a freight train and associated effects [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2016, 156: 14-28

[27] SchoberM, WeiseM, OrellanoA, et al.. Wind tunnel investigation of an ICE 3 endcar on three standard ground scenarios [J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2010, 98(6–7): 345-352

[28] TianH-Q. Review of research on high-speed railway aerodynamics in China [J]. Transportation Safety and Environment, 2019, 1(1): 1-21

[29] NiuJ-Q, SuiY, YuQ-J, et al.. Aerodynamics of railway train/tunnel system: A review of recent research [J]. Energy and Built Environment, 2020, 1(4): 351-375

[30] NiuJ-Q, WangY-M, LiuF, et al.. Numerical study on the effect of a downstream braking plate on the detailed flow field and unsteady aerodynamic characteristics of an upstream braking plate with or without a crosswind [J]. Vehicle System Dynamics, 2021, 59(5): 657-674