Computational fluid dynamics simulation of Hyperloop pod predicting laminar–turbulent transition

Abstract

Three-dimensional compressible flow simulations were conducted to develop a Hyperloop pod. The novelty is the usage of Gamma transition model, in which the transition from laminar to turbulent flow can be predicted. First, a mesh dependency study was undertaken, showing second-order convergence with respect to the mesh refinement. Second, an aerodynamic analysis for two designs, short and optimized, was conducted with the traveling speed 125 m/s at the system pressure 0.15 bar. The concept of the short model was to delay the transition to decrease the frictional drag; meanwhile that of the optimized design was to minimize the pressure drag by decreasing the frontal area and introduce the transition more toward the front of the pod. The computed results show that the transition of the short model occurred more on the rear side due to the pod shape, which resulted in 8% smaller frictional drag coefficient than that for the optimized model. The pressure drag for the optimized design was 24% smaller than that for the short design, half of which is due to the decrease in the frontal area, and the other half is due to the smoothed rear-end shape. The total drag for the optimized model was 14% smaller than that for the short model. Finally, the influence of the system pressure was investigated. As the system pressure and the Reynolds number increase, the frictional drag coefficient increases, and the transition point moves toward the front, which are the typical phenomena observed in the transition regime.

Keywords

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) / Drag / Subsonic compressible flow / Hyperloop / Laminar–turbulent transition

References

[1] Nieth R. High-speed intercity transport: the ‘Swissmetro’. Ingenieurs et architectes suisses, 1988 114 21 327-333

[2] Cassat A Jufer M. MAGLEV projects technology aspects and choices. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond, 2002 12 1 915-925

[3] Oster D (1997) Evacuated tube transport. US patent 5950543

[4] Oster D Kumada M Zhang Y. Evacuated tube transport technologies (ET3)tm: a maximum value global transportation network for passengers and cargo. J Mod Transp, 2011 19 1 42-50

[5] Deng Z Zhang W Zheng J Wang B Ren Y Zheng X Zhang J. A high-temperature superconducting maglev-evacuated tube transport (HTS Maglev-ETT) test system. IEEE Trans Appl Supercond, 2017 27 6 1-8

[6] Musk E (2013) Hyperloop alpha. SpaceX. https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf. Accessed 01 July 2015

[7] Chin JC, Gray JS (2015) Open-source conceptual sizing models for the Hyperloop passenger pod. In: 56th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference

[8] Taylor CL, Hyde DJ, Barr LC (2016) Hyperloop commercial feasibility analysis: high level overview. DOT-VNTSC-NASA-16-01 U.S. Dept. Transportation

[9] Decker K, Chin J, Peng A, Summers C, Nguyen G, Oberlander A, Sakib G, Sharifrazi N, Heath C, Gray JS, Falck RD (2017) Conceptual sizing and feasibility study for a magnetic plane concept. In: 55th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting

[10] Zhang Y. Numerical simulation and analysis of aerodynamic drag on a subsonic train in evacuated tube transportation. J Mod Transp, 2012 20 1 44-48

[11] Chen X Zhao L Ma J Liu Y. Aerodynamic simulation of evacuated tube maglev trains with different streamlined designs. J Mod Transp, 2012 20 2 115-120

[12] Braun J Sousa J Pekardan C. Aerodynamic design and analysis of the hyperloop. AIAA J, 2017 55 12 4053-4060

[13] Opgenoord MMJ Caplan PC. Aerodynamic design of the Hyperloop concept. AIAA J, 2018 56 11 4261-4270

[14] Oh JS Kang T Ham S Lee KS Jang YJ Ryou HS Ryu J. Numerical analysis of aerodynamic characteristics of Hyperloop system. Energies, 2019 12 3 518

[15] Schlichting H Gersten K. Unsteady boundary layers, 2017 Berlin Springer

[16] Ingen JV (2008) The eN method for transition prediction. Historical review of work at TU Delft. In: 38th AIAA fluid dynamics conference and exhibit

[17] White F. Viscous fluid flow, 1974 New York McGraw-Hill Book Company

[18] Menter FR Smirnov PE Liu T Avancha R. A one-equation local correlation-based transition model. Flow Turbul Combust, 2015 95 4 583-619

[19] Roe PL. Characteristic-based schemes for the Euler equations. Annu Rev Fluid Mech, 1986 18 1 337-365

[20] Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J, 1994 32 8 1598-1605

[21] Tong O (2018) Why is the Gamma transition model giving me the wrong result? Siemens Steve Portal. https://thesteveportal.plm.automation.siemens.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/Why-is-the-Gamma-transition-model-giving-me-the-wrong-result. Accessed 02 Oct 2019

[22] Kaynak U Bas O Cakmakcioglu SC Tuncer IH. Transition modeling for low to high speed boundary layer flows with CFD applications, 2019 London IntechOpen

[23] Nocedal J Wright S. Numerical optimization, 2006 2 New York Springer

[24] Siemens PLM Software (2018) STAR-CCM+^® documentation version 13.06. Siemens

[25] Somers D (1981) Design and experimental results for natural-laminar-flow airfoil for general aviation application. NASA-TP-1861, L-14117

[26] Roache PJ. Verification and validation in computational science and engineering, 1998 New Mexico Hermosa Publishers

[27] Kadoya K Matsunaga N Nagashima A. Viscosity and thermal conductivity of dry air in the gaseous phase. J Phys Chem Ref Data, 1985 14 4 947-970

[28] Heisenberg W. Über Stabilität und Turbulenz von Flüssigkeitsströmen. Ann Phys, 1924 379 15 577-627