Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering

ISSN 2095-2430

ISSN 2095-2449(Online)

CN 10-1023/X

邮发代号 80-968

2019 Impact Factor: 1.68

Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering  2022, Vol. 16 Issue (7): 909-927   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-022-0833-1
  本期目录
Aerodynamic impact of train-induced wind on a moving motor-van
Jiajun HE1,2, Huoyue XIANG2,3(), Yongle LI2,3, Bin HAN4
1. Southwest Municipal Engineering Design and Research Institute of China, Chengdu 610299, China
2. Department of Bridge Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China
3. Wind Engineering Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China
4. Sichuan Railway Investment Group Co., Ltd., Chengdu 610093, China
 全文: PDF(13970 KB)   HTML
Abstract

The newly-built single-level rail-cum-road bridge brings the issue of the aerodynamic impact of train-induced wind on road automobiles. This research introduced a validated computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model regarding this concern. Such an aerodynamic impact mechanism was explored; a relationship between the transverse distance between train and motor-van (hereinfafter referred to as van) and the aerodynamic effects on the van was explored to help the optimization of bridge decks, and the relationship between the automobile speed and aerodynamic variations of a van was fitted to help traffic control. The fitting results are accurate enough for further research. It is noted that the relative speed of the two automobiles is not the only factor that influences the aerodynamic variations of the van, even at a confirmed relative velocity, the aerodynamic variations of the van vary a lot as the velocity proportion changes, and the most unfavorable case shows an increase of over 40% on the aerodynamic variations compared to the standard case. The decay of the aerodynamic effects shows that not all the velocity terms would enhance the aerodynamic variations; the coupled velocity term constrains the variation amplitude of moments and decreases the total amplitude by 20%–40%.

Key wordsrail-cum-road bridge    aerodynamic impact    train-induced wind    CFD    aerodynamic force    quantitative analysis    fitting
收稿日期: 2021-11-10      出版日期: 2022-11-17
Corresponding Author(s): Huoyue XIANG   
 引用本文:   
. [J]. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2022, 16(7): 909-927.
Jiajun HE, Huoyue XIANG, Yongle LI, Bin HAN. Aerodynamic impact of train-induced wind on a moving motor-van. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2022, 16(7): 909-927.
 链接本文:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/10.1007/s11709-022-0833-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/CN/Y2022/V16/I7/909
Fig.1  
Fig.2  
Fig.3  
Fig.4  
mesh description FS (N) FL (N)
coarse 4713 666
medium 4637 578
fine 4632 574
Tab.1  
Fig.5  
Fig.6  
items P1 V1 V2 P2
test 0.0531 −0.0511 −0.0615 0.0425
simulation 0.0557 −0.0531 −0.059 0.0396
absolute error (%) 4.9 3.91 4.07 6.82
Tab.2  
case number transverse distance, d (m) automobile speed
1 4.4 van: 80 km/h
2 5.0 CRH3: 250 km/h
3 5.5
4 6.0
5 6.5
6 7.0
7 7.5
8 8.0
9 8.5
10 9.0
Tab.3  
Fig.7  
Fig.8  
Fig.9  
Fig.10  
Fig.11  
aerodynamic forces fittingparameters{\&}Radjust2 EN 2013 :a0(d +0.25) 2+a1 Baker: a0(d +1.75) 2 Xiang: a0( d1.75) 2+a1
FS a0 102523 161412 31947
a1 –29 0.50918
R adjust2 0.9982 0.9613 0.9981
FL a0 23672 30743 4962
a1 –116 –1.2627
R adjust2 0.9972 0.8798 0.9838
MR a0 38647 6.625 12008
a1 –15 0.5159
R adjust2 0.9954 0.9583 0.9950
MY a0 164467 219698 33791
a1 –718 –1.6032
R adjust2 0.9903 0.8771 0.9969
MP a0 45211 50992 6741
a1 –359 –2.5943
R adjust2 0.9909 0.7925 0.9802
Tab.4  
case number Vc (km/h) Vt (km/h) d (m)
1 80 200 5
2 225
3 250
4 275
5 300
Tab.5  
aerodynamic forces A1 A2 A3
FS P1-N N-V1 P1-V1
FL P1-N N-V1 P1-V1
MR P1-N N-V1 P1-V1
MY P1-N N-V1 P1-V1
MP P-N N-V2 P-V2
Tab.6  
Fig.12  
aerodynamic force values a b c R adjust2
FS A1 –0.0893 0.5145 0.8250 0.9996
A2 1.0328 0.6582 –0.5949 0.9987
A3 0.9431 1.1726 0.2300 0.9998
FL A1 –0.0110 0.1327 0.0916 0.9947
A2 –0.5168 0.0273 0.4876 0.9829
A3 –0.5278 0.1599 0.5792 0.9996
MR A1 1.6543 0.3293 –0.6737 0.9942
A2 1.6382 0.2432 –0.9750 0.9978
A3 3.2926 0.5726 –1.6487 0.9971
MY A1 3.9579 1.2702 –2.0469 0.9995
A2 0.6478 1.3069 –0.5617 0.9964
A3 4.6057 2.5771 –2.6086 0.9992
MP A1 2.8146 0.4664 –1.5124 0.9832
A2 2.6796 0.4752 –1.9797 0.8404
A3 5.4943 0.9415 –3.4922 0.9888
Tab.7  
aerosnamic force velocity term 200 km/h 225 km/h 250 km/h 275 km/h 300 km/h
FS a Vc2 0.1066 0.0868 0.0719 0.0605 0.0515
b Vt2 0.8284 0.8537 0.8733 0.8888 0.9013
c Vc Vt 0.0650 0.0595 0.0548 0.0507 0.0471
FL a Vc2 –0.1774 –0.1543 -0.1354 –0.1197 –0.1067
b Vt2 0.3359 0.3697 0.4005 0.4286 0.4544
c Vc Vt 0.4867 0.4761 0.4642 0.4517 0.4389
MR a Vc2 0.2995 0.2643 0.2346 0.2094 0.1879
b Vt2 0.3255 0.3635 0.3984 0.4302 0.4594
c Vc Vt –0.3749 –0.3722 –0.3671 –0.3604 –0.3527
MY a V c2 0.1691 0.1425 0.1214 0.1046 0.0910
b Vt2 0.5914 0.6306 0.6636 0.6917 0.7158
c Vc Vt –0.2395 –0.2269 –0.2149 –0.2037 –0.1932
MP a V c2 0.2732 0.2413 0.2146 0.1919 0.1726
b V t2 0.2926 0.3272 0.3592 0.3887 0.4160
c Vc Vt –0.4342 –0.4315 –0.4263 –0.4194 –0.4114
Tab.8  
case number Vc (km/h) Vt (km/h) percentage (%) d (m)
1 100 230 69.70 5
2 80 250 75.76
3 60 270 81.82
4 0 330 100
Tab.9  
Fig.13  
case number FS FL MR MP MY
1 0.90 0.90 0.98 0.98 0.88
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
3 1.10 1.06 1.06 1.23 1.15
4 1.39 1.23 1.43 1.67 1.64
Tab.10  
aerodynamic force Ai Vc = 100 km/h, Vt = 230 km/h Vc = 80 km/h, Vt = 250 km/h Vc = 60 km/h, Vt = 270 km/h Vc = 0 km/h, Vt = 330 km/h
FS A1 0.07 0.47 0.22 –4.91
A2 3.42 0.06 1.57 24.03
A3 1.40 0.28 0.82 9.41
FL A1 2.23 0.44 6.19 14.34
A2 –0.93 0.17 –9.22 –69.50
A3 0.74 0.28 –0.90 –22.22
MR A1 7.80 –0.93 4.62 91.27
A2 5.38 –1.06 6.16 69.07
A3 7.16 –0.93 5.09 81.20
MY A1 1.28 0.18 4.18 106.64
A2 0.39 1.14 0.99 –10.15
A3 0.83 0.70 2.41 24.55
MP A1 –13.55 –6.21 –7.36 200.75
A2 197.25 30.71 57.42 130.94
A3 6.15 2.44 9.97 160.92
Tab.11  
1 Q Pu, J Liu, H Gou, Y Bao, H Xie. Finite element analysis of long-span rail-cum-road cable-stayed bridge subjected to ship collision. Advances in Structural Engineering, 2019, 22(11): 2530–2542
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433219846953
2 C Shao. Shanghai Yangtze River Bridge—the longest road-cum-rail bridge in China. Structural Engineering International, 2010, 20(3): 291–295
https://doi.org/10.2749/101686610792016844
3 F Shao, Z Chen, H Ge. Parametric analysis of the dynamic characteristics of a long-span three-tower self-anchored suspension bridge with a composite girder. Advances in Bridge Engineering, 2020, 1(1): 1–17
4 Y Wang, R Saul. Wide cable-supported bridges for rail-cum-road traffic. Structural Engineering International, 2020, 30(4): 551–559
5 S Huang, Z Li, M Yang. Aerodynamics of high-speed maglev trains passing each other in open air. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2019, 188: 151–160
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2019.02.025
6 X Xiong, A Li, X Liang, J Zhang. Field study on high-speed train induced fluctuating pressure on a bridge noise barrier. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2018, 177: 157–166
7 T Zhang, H Xia, W W Guo. Analysis on running safety of train on the bridge considering sudden change of wind load caused by wind barriers. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 2018, 12(4): 558–567
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-017-0455-1
8 D Zhou, H Q Tian, J Zhang, M Z Yang. Pressure transients induced by a high-speed train passing through a station. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2014, 135: 1–9
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.09.006
9 N Yang, X K Zheng, J Zhang, S S Law, Q S Yang. Experimental and numerical studies on aerodynamic loads on an overhead bridge due to passage of high-speed train. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2015, 140: 19–33
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.01.015
10 Z Yao, N Zhang, X Chen, C Zhang, H Xia, X Li. The effect of moving train on the aerodynamic performances of train-bridge system with a crosswind. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 2020, 14(1): 222–235
https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2019.1704886
11 Y Zou, Z Fu, X He, C Cai, J Zhou, S Zhou. Wind load characteristics of wind barriers induced by high-speed trains based on field measurements. Applied Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2019, 9(22): 4865
https://doi.org/10.3390/app9224865
12 M Tokunaga, M Sogabe, T Santo, K Ono. Dynamic response evaluation of tall noise barrier on high speed railway structures. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2016, 366: 293–308
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2015.12.015
13 Y G Chen, Q Wu. Study on unsteady aerodynamic characteristics of two trains passing by each other in the open air. Journal of Vibroengineering, 2018, 20(2): 1161–1178
https://doi.org/10.21595/jve.2018.18695
14 W Li, T Liu, Z Chen, Z Guo, X Huo. Comparative study on the unsteady slipstream induced by a single train and two trains passing each other in a tunnel. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2020, 198: 104095
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2020.104095
15 Z Sun, Y Zhang, D Guo, G Yang, Y Liu. Research on running stability of CRH3 high speed trains passing by each other. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 2014, 8(1): 140–157
https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2014.11015504
16 M Tokunaga, M Sogabe, T Santo, K Ono. Dynamic response evaluation of tall noise barrier on high speed railway structures. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2016, 366: 293–308
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2015.12.015
17 M Bocciolone, F Cheli, R Corradi, S Muggiasca, G Tomasini. Crosswind action on rail vehicles: Wind tunnel experimental analyses. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2008, 96(5): 584–610
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2008.02.030
18 T Liu, Z Chen, X Zhou, J Zhang. A CFD analysis of the aerodynamics of a highspeed train passing through a windbreak transition under crosswind. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 2018, 12(1): 137–151
https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2017.1360211
19 J Niu, D Zhou, Y Wang. Numerical comparison of aerodynamic performance of stationary and moving trains with or without windbreak wall under crosswind. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2018, 182: 1–15
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2018.09.011
20 C J Baker. High sided articulated road vehicles in strong cross winds. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1988, 31(1): 67–85
https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(88)90188-2
21 F R Menter, M Kuntz, R Langtry. Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model turbulence heat and mass transfer. Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, 2003, 4(1): 625–632
22 M Lee, G Park, C Park, C Kim. Improvement of grid independence test for computational fluid dynamics model of building based on grid resolution. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2020, 1–11
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8827936
23 H Xiang, Y Li, B Wang, H Liao. Numerical simulation of the protective effect of railway wind barriers under crosswinds. International Journal of Rail Transportation, 2015, 3(3): 151–163
https://doi.org/10.1080/23248378.2015.1054906
24 H Xiang, Y Li, S Chen, G Hou. Wind loads of moving vehicle on bridge with solid wind barrier. Engineering Structures, 2018, 156: 188–196
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.11.009
25 H Xiang, Y Li, S Chen, C Li. A wind tunnel test method on aerodynamic characteristics of moving vehicle s under crosswinds. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2017, 163: 15–23
26 J He, H Xiang, W Ren, Y Li. Numerical simulation on aerodynamic characteristics of moving van under the train-induced wind. Wind and Structures, 2021, 33(1): 41–54
27 C Baker, S Jordan, T Gilbert, A Quinn, M Sterling, T Johnson, J Lane. Transient aerodynamic pressures and forces on trackside and overhead structures due to passing trains. Part 1: Model-scale experiments. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part F, Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 2014, 228(1): 37–56
https://doi.org/10.1177/0954409712464859
28 H Xiang. Protection effect of wind barrier on high speed railway and its wind loads. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Chengdu: Southwest Jiaotong University, 2013 (in Chinese)
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed