Aerodynamic impact of train-induced wind on a moving motor-van

doi:10.1007/s11709-022-0833-1

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2022, Vol. 16

Issue (7) : 909-927 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-022-0833-1

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Aerodynamic impact of train-induced wind on a moving motor-van

Jiajun HE^1,², Huoyue XIANG^2,³(

), Yongle LI^2,³, 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

Download: PDF(13970 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

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%.

Keywords rail-cum-road bridge aerodynamic impact train-induced wind CFD aerodynamic force quantitative analysis fitting

Corresponding Author(s): Huoyue XIANG

Just Accepted Date: 19 August 2022 Online First Date: 20 October 2022 Issue Date: 17 November 2022

Cite this article:

Jiajun HE,Huoyue XIANG,Yongle LI, et al. Aerodynamic impact of train-induced wind on a moving motor-van[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2022, 16(7): 909-927.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-022-0833-1
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2022/V16/I7/909

Fig.1 Cross section of the Yibin Lingang Yangtze River bridge: (a) bridge section; (b) bridge deck system (unit: mm) [4].

Fig.2 Calculation domain and geometric model.

Fig.3 Data exchange of sliding mesh.

Fig.4 Zone division and meshes: (a) zone division; (b) mesh of train; (c) mesh of van.

Tab.1 Results of different mesh resolutions

Fig.5 Moving model test: (a) test system; (b) automobile models.

Fig.6 Comparison of C_d between the test and simulation.

Tab.2 Quantitative difference of C_d between the test and simulation

Tab.3 Case detail for different transverse distance d

Fig.7 Definition of the relative location x.

Fig.8 Pressure contour of the meeting process in encounter (unit: Pa).

Fig.9 Aerodynamic forces under different transverse distances: (a) F_S; (b) F_L; (c) M_R; (d) M_Y; (e) M_P.

Fig.10 Pressure contour and streamline around sole-traveling train (unit: Pa).

Fig.11 Fitting results of the aerodynamic forces and transverse distance. (a) F_S; (b) F_L; (c) M_R; (d) M_Y; (e) M_P.

aerodynamic forces	$f i t t i n g p a r a m e t e r s {\&} R adjust 2$	$E N 2013 : a 0 (d + 0.25) 2 + a 1$	$B a k e r : a 0 (d + 1.75) 2$	$X i a n g : a 0 (d 1.75) 2 + a 1$
F_S	a₀	102523	161412	31947
	a₁	–29	–	0.50918
	$R adjust 2$	0.9982	0.9613	0.9981
F_L	a₀	23672	30743	4962
	a₁	–116	–	–1.2627
	$R adjust 2$	0.9972	0.8798	0.9838
M_R	a₀	38647	6.625	12008
	a₁	–15	–	0.5159
	$R adjust 2$	0.9954	0.9583	0.9950
M_Y	a₀	164467	219698	33791
	a₁	–718	–	–1.6032
	$R adjust 2$	0.9903	0.8771	0.9969
M_P	a₀	45211	50992	6741
	a₁	–359	–	–2.5943
	$R adjust 2$	0.9909	0.7925	0.9802

Tab.4 Fitting parameters and judgement index

Tab.5 Case details of different train speeds

Tab.6 Defined values of variation amplitude

Fig.12 Fitting results of different train speeds: (a) F_S; (b) F_L; (c) M_R; (d) M_Y (e) M_P.

aerodynamic force	values	a	b	c	$R adjust 2$
F_S	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
F_L	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
M_R	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
M_Y	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
M_P	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 Fitting parameters and judgement index

aerosnamic force	velocity term	200 km/h	225 km/h	250 km/h	275 km/h	300 km/h
F_S	$a V c 2$	0.1066	0.0868	0.0719	0.0605	0.0515
	$b V t 2$	0.8284	0.8537	0.8733	0.8888	0.9013
	$c V c V t$	0.0650	0.0595	0.0548	0.0507	0.0471
F_L	$a V c 2$	–0.1774	–0.1543	-0.1354	–0.1197	–0.1067
	$b V t 2$	0.3359	0.3697	0.4005	0.4286	0.4544
	$c V c V t$	0.4867	0.4761	0.4642	0.4517	0.4389
M_R	$a V c 2$	0.2995	0.2643	0.2346	0.2094	0.1879
	$b V t 2$	0.3255	0.3635	0.3984	0.4302	0.4594
	$c V c V t$	–0.3749	–0.3722	–0.3671	–0.3604	–0.3527
M_Y	$a V c 2$	0.1691	0.1425	0.1214	0.1046	0.0910
	$b V t 2$	0.5914	0.6306	0.6636	0.6917	0.7158
	$c V c V t$	–0.2395	–0.2269	–0.2149	–0.2037	–0.1932
M_P	$a V c 2$	0.2732	0.2413	0.2146	0.1919	0.1726
	$b V t 2$	0.2926	0.3272	0.3592	0.3887	0.4160
	$c V c V t$	–0.4342	–0.4315	–0.4263	–0.4194	–0.4114

Tab.8 Proportion of velocity terms (unit: %)

Tab.9 Case details of different velocity proportion

Fig.13 Aerodynamic forces under different velocity proportion. (a) F_S; (b) F_L; (c) M_R; (d) M_Y; (e) M_P.

Tab.10 Comparison of amplitude coefficient in different velocity proportions

Tab.11 Percentage error between the fitting results and numerical results (unit: %)

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)

[1]	Chien Ming WANG, Mengmeng HAN, Junwei LYU, Wenhui DUAN, Kwanghoe JUNG. Floating forest: A novel breakwater-windbreak structure against wind and wave hazards[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 1111-1127.
[2]	Pratik P. BHATT, Venkatesh K. R. KODUR, Anuj M. SHAKYA, Tarek ALKHRDAJI. Performance of insulated FRP-strengthened concrete flexural members under fire conditions[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 177-193.
[3]	Mahrad FAHIMINIA, Aydin SHISHEGARAN. Evaluation of a developed bypass viscous damper performance[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 773-791.
[4]	Yasmin MURAD, Wassel AL BODOUR, Ahmed ASHTEYAT. Seismic retrofitting of severely damaged RC connections made with recycled concrete using CFRP sheets[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(2): 554-568.
[5]	Abbas PARSAIE,Sadegh DEHDAR-BEHBAHANI,Amir Hamzeh HAGHIABI. Numerical modeling of cavitation on spillway’s flip bucket[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2016, 10(4): 438-444.
[6]	Iman TABAEYE IZADI, Abdolrasoul RANJBARAN. Investigation on a mitigation scheme to resist the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings[J]. Front Struc Civil Eng, 2012, 6(4): 421-430.
[7]	Fuyou XU , Zhe ZHANG , Cailiang HUANG , Airong CHEN , . Comparisons of bridges flutter derivatives and generalized ones[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2009, 3(3): 272-278.
[8]	ZHU Zhiwen, WANG Zhaoxiang, CHEN Zhengqing. Computational fluid dynamic analysis of flutter characteristics for self-anchored suspension bridges[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2008, 2(3): 267-273.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed