applied

sciences
Article
Aerodynamic Performance of a High-Speed Train
Passing through Three Standard Tunnel Junctions
under Crosswinds
Xiujuan Miao 1,2 , Kan He 3,4, * , Guglielmo Minelli 5 , Jie Zhang 3,4 , Guangjun Gao 3,4 ,
Hongliang Wei 6 , Maosheng He 6 and Sinisa Krajnovic 5
1 College of Automobile and Machinery Engineering, Changsha University of Science and Technology,
Changsha 410076, China; mxj77@csust.edu.cn
2 Key Laboratory of Safety Design and Reliability Technology for Engineering Vehicle, Changsha University of
Science and Technology, Changsha 410076, China
3 Key Laboratory of Traffic Safety on Track of Ministry of Education, School of Traffic & Transportation
Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China; jie_csu@csu.edu.cn (J.Z.);
gjgao@csu.edu.cn (G.G.)
4 National & Local Joint Engineering Research Center of Safety Technology for Rail Vehicle,
Changsha 410075, China
5 Division of Fluid Dynamics, Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences, Chalmers University of
Technology, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden; guglielmo.minelli@chalmers.se (G.M.); sinisa@chalmers.se (S.K.)
6 CRRC Qiqihar Railway Rolling Stock Co., Ltd., Dalian 116000, China; hongliang80@163.com (H.W.);
19140574@bjtu.edu.cn (M.H.)
* Correspondence: kan.he@csu.edu.cn




Received: 13 April 2020; Accepted: 21 May 2020; Published: 24 May 2020


Abstract: The aerodynamic performance of a high-speed train passing through tunnel junctions under
severe crosswind condition was numerically investigated using improved delayed detached-eddy
simulations (IDDES). Three ground scenarios connected with entrances and exits of tunnels were
considered. In particular a flat ground, an embankment, and a bridge configuration were used.
The numerical method was first validated against experimental data, showing good agreement.
The results show that the ground scenario has a large effect on the train’s aerodynamic performance.
The bridge case resulted in generally smaller drag and lift, as well as a lower pressure coefficient
on both the train body and the inner tunnel wall, as compared to the tunnel junctions with flat
ground and embankment. Furthermore, the bridge configuration contributed to the smallest pressure
variation in time in the tunnel. Overall, the study gives important insights on complicated tunnel
junction scenarios coupled with severe flow conditions, that, to the knowledge of the authors, were
not studied before. Beside this, the results can be used for further improvements in the design of
tunnels where such crosswind conditions may occur.

Keywords: IDDES; high-speed train; tunnel junction; crosswind; numerical simulation

1. Introduction
Due to its fast speed, large transportation capacity, and high safety performance, the high-speed
train network has been rapidly developed all around the world in the latest decades. However, all these
positive aspects come at a price: The train speed significantly impacts its aerodynamic performance,
raising problems connected to operational safety and performance. Particularly important is the train’s
capability to withstand the effects of strong crosswind, which, in extreme cases, leads to catastrophic
events and overturning. The combination of strong and sudden crosswind gusts with high moving

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664; doi:10.3390/app10113664 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 2 of 20

speed results in dangerous situations and may increase the risk of derailment. A further aspect to
consider is that with the development of technology, high-speed railways have gradually reached
mountainous regions. As a result, high-speed railway tunnels have been built to shorten distance
between destinations. Subsequently, different junctions, such as flat ground, embankment, and bridge
scenarios, are normally found at the entrance and exit of tunnels. For example, the Sichuan-Tibet
Railway in China, which is planned to be built in the upcoming years, crosses the Hengduan Mountains
and follows the “Seven Mountains and Six Rivers” along its route. High altitude and complex terrain
lead to a large number of tunnels along the railways and contributes to significantly different wind
conditions as compared to those in plain regions. When the train exits the tunnel, for example,
and comes into a strong wind region, the sudden change of the surrounding flow inevitably causes
vibrations and poses a direct threat to its safety.
Previous work in this topic has been mostly carried out with experiments using both static and
moving models. A static experiment consists of a fixed model and an incoming wind speed. It is
generally carried out in wind tunnels in order to evaluate crosswind and Reynolds number effects [1].
In particular, the most prominent studies in the literatures [2,3] have numerically and experimentally
shown that crosswind has a strong influence on different aspects of a train’s operational performance
and safety. However, several aspects may not be observed with a fixed model in a wind tunnel.
For example, with a fixed configuration it is not possible to evaluate the effect of a train moving through
a tunnel. To overcome this disadvantage, a moving model configuration can be used. Concerning
this method, it has been shown that the flow field around a train will suddenly change because of the
relative motion between the train and the surrounding environment which, for example, occur when
the train passes through a tunnel [4,5]. Experimental results show that the flow field around a train
under a condition of crosswind or passing through a tunnel could be observed by using fixed or moving
models, respectively. However, it is still not easy to combine both the investigation of crosswind and
tunnel pass-through. Some moving model experiments have been carried out in wind tunnels but
restricted by the limited space and moving speed: The Reynolds number was much lower than the
actual situation, resulting in a different flow field from the reality [6,7]. For this reason, a methodology
which takes into account this aspect should be explored for a deeper analysis.
Numerical simulations are a clearer and reliable solution to overcome the difficult measurements
done in experiments. So far, numerical simulations were extensively used to study the flow around
fixed trains under crosswind by setting specific inlet flow condition [8–12]. This method is equivalent
to the wind tunnel experiment environment, therefore, the train aerodynamic performance in various
wind conditions can also be obtained. However, when it is necessary to predict the flow field around a
train passing through a tunnel, a moving model need to be considered. On this account, sliding mesh
or dynamic mesh techniques were used in many published works [13–16] successfully simulating
moving trains passing through tunnels. Thanks to this, the aerodynamic effect of different railway
tunnel conditions observed provided insight for designers of both tunnels and trains. However, there
are not many numerical works which have combined the study of side wind with moving trains.
It can be found that Krajnović et al. [6] used large eddy simulation (LES) to simulate the flow around
a simplified moving train model under crosswind. Their results showed a clear difference in the
aerodynamic forces and momentum between the dynamic and static train models. Although a low
Reynolds number was used in that case, many valuable pieces of information about the flow field
around a moving train under crosswind were provided. Then, Liu [17] numerically studied a train
passing by a rectangular windbreak-transition-region, moving from a cutting to an embankment, under
crosswind. Their results were compared with full-scale experimental data, showing good agreement.
The mentioned studies illustrate that using sliding or dynamic meshes in a crosswind condition is a
suitable solution to present this flow condition and can be used to continue doing this work.
 about the flow field around a moving train under crosswind were provided. Then, Liu [20]
numerically studied a train passing by a rectangular windbreak-transition-region, moving from a
cutting to an embankment, under crosswind. Their results were compared with full-scale
experimental data, showing good agreement. The mentioned studies illustrate that using sliding or
dynamic
Appl. meshes
Sci. 2020, in a crosswind condition is a suitable solution to present this flow condition and
10, 3664 3 ofcan
20
be used to continue doing this work.
The effect of crosswind on a train passing through a tunnel has not been yet fully combined.
The effect of crosswind on a train passing through a tunnel has not been yet fully combined. Only
Only recently, Yang [21] showed that the effect of crosswind locally increases when the train is
recently, Yang [18] showed that the effect of crosswind locally increases when the train is moving from
moving from tunnels into open air as compared to the solely crosswind situation. When a train passes
tunnels into open air as compared to the solely crosswind situation. When a train passes through
through tunnels, the flow conditions can change suddenly producing a highly complex flow,
tunnels, the flow conditions can change suddenly producing a highly complex flow, especially under
especially under the condition of crosswind. However, when a train enters and exits a tunnel, it is
the condition of crosswind. However, when a train enters and exits a tunnel, it is still unknown how
still unknown how the tunnel junctions affect the train under crosswind. In fact, it can be found that
the tunnel junctions affect the train under crosswind. In fact, it can be found that compared to a flat
compared to a flat ground, other different subgrades, such as bridges or embankments, have a great
ground, other different subgrades, such as bridges or embankments, have a great influence on the flow
influence on the flow around a train [10,22]. Therefore, the coupled effect of different tunnel junctions
around a train [7,19]. Therefore, the coupled effect of different tunnel junctions and crosswind on a
and crosswind on a moving train needs a thorough understanding. Different scenarios characterize
moving train needs a thorough understanding. Different scenarios characterize different flow fields,
different flow fields, and the present work is an attempt to increase our knowledge about high-speed
and the present work is an attempt to increase our knowledge about high-speed trains moving through
trains moving through different tunnel junctions under crosswind, identifying the most critical
different tunnel junctions under crosswind, identifying the most critical aspects. The conclusion of
aspects. The conclusion of this present work can provide a starting point for a design reference for
this present work can provide a starting point for a design reference for the construction of tunnel
the construction of tunnel junctions dedicated to the high-speed railways network.
junctions dedicated to the high-speed railways network.
The present paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the methodology, domain, and mesh
The present paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the methodology, domain, and mesh
generation used for the CFD simulations are given. Grid independence examinations, time step
generation used for the CFD simulations are given. Grid independence examinations, time step
verifications, and a full-scale validation are also reported. In Section 3 the results are discussed
verifications, and a full-scale validation are also reported. In Section 3 the results are discussed
focusing on the aerodynamic forces history of high-speed trains passing through tunnel junctions
focusing on the aerodynamic forces history of high-speed trains passing through tunnel junctions
under crosswind. Secondly, the history of pressure on both the train body and the inner tunnel wall
under crosswind. Secondly, the history of pressure on both the train body and the inner tunnel wall
is reported. The last part of Section 3 contains a deeper analysis of the pressure distribution, flow
is reported. The last part of Section 3 contains a deeper analysis of the pressure distribution, flow
streamlines, and flow structures. Conclusions follow in Section 4.
streamlines, and flow structures. Conclusions follow in Section 4.
2. Methodology
2. Methodology

2.1. Geometry
2.1. Geometry Models
Models
Three kind
Three kind of
of junctions
junctions are
are studied
studied in
in the
the present
present work:
work: aa flat
flat ground
ground (Case
(Case 1),
1), an
an embankment
embankment
(Case 2), and a bridge configuration (Case 3), as shown in Figure
(Case 2), and a bridge configuration (Case 3), as shown in Figure 1. 2.

Figure 2. Schematic
Figure 1. Schematic of
of three
three junction
junction scenarios.
scenarios.

The geometry of the model is a simplified CRH2 (China Railway High-speed 2) train, which is
composed of a head car (HC), a middle car (MC), and a tail car (TC), as shown in Figure 2a. Figure 2b
shows the cross-sections of the embankment, the bridge, and the tunnel used. The models of the CRH2
train, tunnel, embankment, and bridge are not scaled. All the geometry quantities are given in Table 1,
normalized with the height of the train H, which is 3.7 m.
 The geometry of the model is a simplified CRH2 (China Railway High-speed 2) train, which is
composed of a head car (HC), a middle car (MC), and a tail car (TC), as shown in Figure 3a. Figure
3b shows the cross-sections of the embankment, the bridge, and the tunnel used. The models of the
CRH2 train,
Appl. Sci. 2020, tunnel,
10, 3664 embankment, and bridge are not scaled. All the geometry quantities are given
4 ofin
20
Table 1, normalized with the height of the train H, which is 3.7 m.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 3.2.Models used
Models in the
used in calculation: (a) The(a)
the calculation: CRH2
The (China
CRH2 Railway High-speed
(China Railway 2) train; (b)
High-speed 2)cross-
train;
sections of the embankment,
(b) cross-sections bridge, and
of the embankment, tunnel.
bridge, and tunnel.

Table 1. Dimensions of geometric models.

Table 1. Dimensions of geometric models.
Dimensions
DimensionsofofTrain
Train W W L1 L1 L2L2 L3L3
/H 0.91 6.95 6.76 6.95
/H 0.91 6.95 6.76 6.95
EmbankmentWE1WE1 WE2
Dimensions ofofEmbankment
Dimensions WE2 WE3
WE3 WWE4 E4 HHEE
/H 3.62 2.70 0.76 0.59 1.35
/H 3.62 2.70 0.76 0.59 1.35
Dimensions
DimensionsofofBridge
Bridge WB1WB1 WB2WB2 WB3
WB3 WWB4 B4 HHB1B1 HHB2B2 HHB3B3 H
HB4B4
HB5
H B5
/H 3.62 1.55 0.76 0.59 0.86 0.81 0.76 0.74 0.65
/H 3.62 1.55 0.76 0.59 0.86 0.81 0.76 0.74 0.65
Dimensions
DimensionsofofTunnel
Tunnel WT1WT1 WT2WT2 WT3
WT3 HT1
HT1 HHT2T2
/H 3.57 0.76 0.59 2.32 2.26
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 5 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 21

2.2. Numerical Method /H 3.57 0.76 0.59 2.32 2.26

The flow around the train is predicted by solving the compressible Navier–Stokes equations
2.2. Numerical Method
together with the energy conservation equation. The commercial finite volume solver ANSYS Fluent
The flow
18.0 was used. Thearound
improvedthe train is predicted
delayed by solving
detached-eddy the compressible
simulation (IDDES)Navier–Stokes
[20] approachequations
based on the
together with the energy conservation equation. The commercial
SST k-ω turbulence model [21] was used. The IDDES combines the wall-modelled finite volume solverLES
ANSYS Fluent and
(WMLES)
18.0 was used. The improved delayed detached-eddy simulation (IDDES) [23] approach based on the
the delayed detached eddy simulation (DDES) in order to improve the prediction. This method has
SST k-ω turbulence model [24] was used. The IDDES combines the wall-modelled LES (WMLES) and
been applied successfully in previous researches to predict the flow fields for high-speed trains [22–26].
the delayed detached eddy simulation (DDES) in order to improve the prediction. This method has
The convective
been applied terms and diffusive
successfully termsresearches
in previous are approximated
to predictbythean upwind
flow fields interpolation
for high-speedof second-order
trains [25–
accuracy. The time derivative is discretized using the bounded second-order
29]. The convective terms and diffusive terms are approximated by an upwind interpolation implicit schemeof for
unsteady flow calculations.
second-order accuracy. The Thetimemovement
derivative of the train isusing
is discretized simulated in the second-order
the bounded present work by sliding
implicit
meshes, which
scheme have been
for unsteady flowwidely used in
calculations. Thetunnel aerodynamics
movement of the train for high-speed
is simulated trains
in the [16,17,27,28].
present work
by sliding meshes, which have been widely used in tunnel aerodynamics for high-speed
Figure 3 shows a representative sketch of the main sliding mesh procedure. Nodes a-d on the interface trains
[19,20,30,31].
are combined Figure
with the4nodes
shows A–F
a representative sketch ofof
on the boundary thethe
main slidingdomain
moving mesh procedure.
and nodesNodesG–Ja-don the
on the interface are combined with the nodes A–F on the boundary of the moving
boundary of the stationary domain surrounding flow. Therefore, the flow information is exchanged domain and nodes
G–J on the boundary of the stationary domain surrounding flow. Therefore, the flow information is
between the two domains when simulating the train moving in every time step.
exchanged between the two domains when simulating the train moving in every time step.

Figure3.4.Sketch
Figure Sketch map
map of
ofthe
thesliding
slidingmesh.
mesh.

2.3. Numerical Details

2.3. Numerical andand
Details Mesh Distributions
Mesh Distributions
The computational
The computational domain
domain consistsof
consists ofthree
three parts,
parts,i.e.,
i.e.,two
twoopen-air regions
open-air regionsandand
a tunnel region,
a tunnel region,
as shown in Figure 5. In this work, the CRH2 train moves from the open-air 1 to the
as shown in Figure 4. In this work, the CRH2 train moves from the open-air 1 to the open-air 2 throughopen-air 2 through
the tunnel at a speed of = 97.22 m·s−1 (approximately 350 km·h−1) under crosswind at a uniform
the tunnel at a speed of v-1v = 97.22 m·s−1 (approximately 350 km·h−1 ) under crosswind at a uniform
velocity of = 25m·s . Both and are constant in time. The Reynolds number based on H is
velocity of vw7 = 25m·s−1 . Both vv and vw are constant in time. The Reynolds number based on H
2.46 × 10 . The two open-air regions have an identical size and the dimensions of the domain,
is 2.46 × 107 . The
normalized two
with H, open-air
are listed regions
in Table have
2. Thean topidentical
surfaces size
of theand
twothe dimensions
open-air regionsof arethe
setdomain,
as
normalized
symmetry with H, are condition,
boundary listed in Table 2. The
while the top
lateral surfaces
sides closer toof the
thetrack
two are
open-air
treatedregions
as mass are
flowset as
symmetry boundary
inlets, which means condition,
a prescribedwhile
masstheflowlateral
rate issides closer
provided. toother
The the track are treated
two lateral sides areastreated
mass flow
inlets,aswhich means
pressure a prescribed
outlets. The two ends mass
are flow rate is as
also treated provided. The other
pressure outlets. All two
otherlateral
surfacessides are treated as
are specified
as No-slip
pressure outlets.boundary
The two conditions.
ends are also treated as pressure outlets. All other surfaces are specified as
No-slip boundary conditions.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 21

Figure 5. Computational domain (for Case 3).

Figure 4. Computational domain (for Case 3).
Table 2. Dimensions of computational domain.

Dimensions Wo Lo Ho Dl Dw HB LT
/H 81.08 81.08 24.32 27.03 13.51 8.11 81.08

The computational mesh used in the simulation was a structured hexahedral generated using
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 6 of 20

Table 2. Dimensions of computational domain.

Dimensions WoFigure 5.LComputational

o Ho domain
Dl(for CaseD3).
w HB LT
/H 81.08
Table 2.81.08 24.32
Dimensions 27.03 domain.
of computational 13.51 8.11 81.08

Dimensions Wo Lo Ho Dl Dw HB LT
The computational mesh /H used in the81.08
81.08 simulation
24.32 was
27.03a structured
13.51 8.11hexahedral
81.08 generated using
the commercial software Pointwise 18.0. Accuracy was established by simulating the baseline case
on three different computational
The computational grids
mesh used in which are presented
the simulation in Section
was a structured 2.5 in more
hexahedral details.using
generated Figure 5
shows thesome
commercial
detailssoftware Pointwise
of the mesh 18.0. Accuracy
distribution. was established
The mesh near the trainby simulating the baseline
is fine enough case the
to capture
on three
turbulent different
structures nearcomputational grids while
the train model, which those
are presented
far frominthe Section 2.5 in
train are more details.
relatively coarse.Figure 6
A uniform
shows some details of the mesh distribution. The mesh near the train is fine enough
transition was adopted to generate the mesh. The spatial resolution around the rear part is much finer to capture the
turbulent structures near the train model, while those far from the train are relatively coarse. A
than that around the rest of the train body. Steady RANS simulations were performed to obtain the
uniform transition was adopted to generate the mesh. The spatial resolution around the rear part is
initial flow fields. All unsteady simulations were run over t* = t × vv /H = 162. The CFL number was
much finer than that around the rest of the train body. Steady RANS simulations were performed to
lowerobtain
than 1theininitial
99% of thefields.
flow domain.All However, there werewere
unsteady simulations still some regions
run over t* = t×near/Hthe trainThe
= 162. body
CFLwhere
the CFL number was higher than 1 because of a number of very small cells. A time-step
number was lower than 1 in 99% of the domain. However, there were still some regions near the train independence
studybody
waswhere
also performed
the CFL numberand reported
was higher in than
Section 2.5. The
1 because of amaximum
number of residual
very small value
cells.of
A the continuity
time-step
equation to satisfystudy
independence the convergence criterion
was also performed was
and reported 10−4
set to in .
Section 2.5. The maximum residual value
of thestudy
The continuity equation
conducted byto[29]
satisfy
showsthe convergence
that the effectcriterion
of thewas set to 10number
Reynolds −4.
on the aerodynamic
The study conducted by [32] shows that the effect of the Reynolds
performance of trains running through tunnels is significant. Therefore, a full-scale number on the aerodynamic
model and a
performance of trains running through tunnels is significant. Therefore, a full-scale model and a
realistic Reynolds number in the present study are used. The comparison with experiments shows that
realistic Reynolds number in the present study are used. The comparison with experiments shows
the numerical accuracy satisfies the experiments for engineering applications.
that the numerical accuracy satisfies the experiments for engineering applications.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 6. The
5. The computationalmesh
computational meshused
used in
in simulations:
simulations: (a)(a)Surface
Surfacemesh distribution
mesh of the
distribution oftrain,
the train,
bridge and tunnel, (b) mesh distribution around the train.
bridge and tunnel, (b) mesh distribution around the train.

2.4. Post-Processing
The aerodynamic forces (the drag, side, and lift forces) and pressure were monitored to investigate
the aerodynamic performance of the train when it travels through the three selected junctions under
crosswind. The forces and the pressure were normalized to calculate the corresponding coefficients, as
follows [30]:
Fd
Cd = 1 (1)
2 ρA(vv + vw )
2 2

Fs
Cs = (2)
2 ρA(vv + vw )
1 2 2

Fl
Cl = (3)
2 ρA(vv + vw )
1 2 2
 2

= (3)
1
( + )
2
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 7 of 20
−
= (4)
1
( P − P∞)
+
Cp 2= 1 (4)
2 ρ ( vv + vw )
2 2

= Mo (5)
Cm 1= 1 (
(5)
ρAH + 2 + v)w 2 )
2 2 ( v v

Here, Cd ,, Cs , Cl, Cp,, and

Here, and Cm are are the
theaerodynamic
aerodynamiccoefficients
coefficientsofof drag,
drag, side,
side, andandlift lift forces,
forces, the
the pressure and the overturning momentum,
pressure and the overturning momentum, respectively. respectively. F , F , F ,
, d , s ,l and and P are the corresponding
the corresponding
A = 11.2=m11.2 2 refers2
forces
forcesand pressure.P∞ the
andpressure. is reference
the referencepressure, Mo is the overturning
pressure, is the overturning momentum. momentum. m
to the reference
refers cross-sectional
to the reference area of area
cross-sectional of theρtrain.
the train. = 1.225 = kg·m −3
1.225 kg·m is the−3 air density.
is the vv and vw and
air density. are the
velocity of the train
are the velocity and
of the crosswind,
train respectively.
and crosswind, respectively.
Two
Twopressure
pressuremeasuring
measuringpoints
pointswere
werevirtually
virtuallymounted
mountedon onthethetrain
trainbody
bodyand andsome
someon on the
the inner
inner
tunnel
tunnel wall.
wall. Figure
Figure 6a
7a shows the location
location of a point
point onon one
one side
side ofof the
the middle
middle car,car, and
and aa symmetrical
symmetrical
point
pointisisfound
foundononthetheother side.
other Figure
side. 6b shows
Figure 7b showsthe location of a point
the location on a cross
of a point on a section of the tunnel
cross section of the
wall.
tunnelDimensions of the locations
wall. Dimensions of points of
of the locations onpoints
the trainonand
the on theand
train crossonsection, normalized
the cross with H, are
section, normalized
listed
with H,in Table 3. The
are listed indistribution
Table 3. Theofdistribution
all 19 cross sections
of all 19(Scross
1 –19 ) along
sections the(Slength of thethe
1–19) along tunnel
lengthis shown
of the
in Figure
tunnel is 6c. Thein
shown distances
Figure 7c. between those points
The distances between andthose
entrancepointsor and
exit of the tunnel
entrance areof
or exit normalized
the tunnel
with the length ofwith
are normalized the tunnel, LT , listed
the length of theintunnel,
Table 3.LTMore points
, listed are fixed
in Table nearpoints
3. More the entrance
are fixedandnear
the exit
the
of the tunnel due to expected higher gradients of the flow pressure.
entrance and the exit of the tunnel due to expected higher gradients of the flow pressure.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 6.
Figure 7. Schematic
Schematic ofof measuring
measuring points
points locations:
locations: (a)
(a) on
on the
the middle
middle car;
car; (b)
(b) on
on the
the inner
inner wall of the
wall of the
tunnel; (c) cross sections along the tunnel. Dimensions are in
tunnel; (c) cross sections along the tunnel. Dimensions are in [m].[m].

Table 3. Dimensions of locations of pressure measuring points.

Dimensions Dp1 Hp1 Dp2 Hp2

/H 3.38 0.46 1.86 0.54
Dimensions D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9
/LT 0.017 0.033 0.067 0.100 0.133 0.167 0.267 0.467 0.500

2.5. Grid Independence and Time Step Verification

Previous works [25–29] have shown that grid sizes around 4 × 107 were enough for an IDDES
simulation on flow around high-speed trains. However, in order to better verify the accuracy of the
results, a grid independence study was performed on three different computational meshes: Fine
mesh with 4.6 × 107 elements as described in Section 2.3, medium mesh, containing 4.1 × 107 elements
with the cells, and coarse mesh, containing 3.9 × 107 elements. Compared to the fine mesh, the
medium and coarse mesh had a lower spanwise and streamwise resolution. The flat ground
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 8 of 20

Table 3. Dimensions of locations of pressure measuring points.

Dimensions Dp1 Hp1 Dp2 Hp2

/H 3.38 0.46 1.86 0.54
Dimensions D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9
/LT 0.017 0.033 0.067 0.100 0.133 0.167 0.267 0.467 0.500

2.5. Grid Independence and Time Step Verification

Previous works [22–26] have shown that grid sizes around 4 × 107 were enough for an IDDES
simulation on flow around high-speed trains. However, in order to better verify the accuracy of the
results, a grid independence study was performed on three different computational meshes: Fine mesh
with 4.6 × 107 elements as described in Section 2.3, medium mesh, containing 4.1 × 107 elements with
the cells, and coarse mesh, containing 3.9 × 107 elements. Compared to the fine mesh, the medium and
coarse mesh had a lower spanwise and streamwise resolution. The flat ground configuration was used
in the grid-independence study. The Cp value at the measurement point located on the windward side
of the middle car is shown in Figure 7a. Cp is not sensitive to the mesh resolutions. The maximum
difference which occurs at the negative pressure peak is less than 5%, while is generally less than 1%.
Thus, the medium mesh was found to be a suitable compromise used to analyze the flow.
The temporal resolution was evaluated by performing simulations on three different time steps,
i.e., dt* = t × vv /H are 0.131, 0.066 and 0.026. Cp , velocity magnitude and Cs curves in Figure 7b–d show
large differences when the dt* decreases from 0.131 to 0.066. However, a rather small difference is
observed between dt* of 0.066 and 0.026. In those comparisons, the monitoring point was located at
the track centerline of the tunnel entrance, 0.4 H height above the ground, and Cs was the side force
coefficient of the head car. At the two smaller time steps, the difference is less than 1%, except for
the negative pressure peak which presents a 5% error. Thus, the dt* = 0.066 is selected as the best
compromise between accuracy and computational cost, and later used for the next of the calculations
presented in 10,
Appl. Sci. 2020, thisx FOR
work.
PEER REVIEW 9 of 21

Figure7.8. Grid
Figure Grid independence
independenceand
andtime
timestep
step verification:
verification: (a)
(a) Grid
Grid independence
independence visualized
visualized by
by Cp ; ;time
time
step independence visualized by (b) ; (c) velocity magnitude; (d)
step independence visualized by (b) Cp ; (c) velocity magnitude; (d) Cs . .

2.6. Validation
The experimental data from a previously performed full-scale test were used for the validation
of numerical accuracy. The real CRH2 train used in the experimental investigation had eight cars,
consisting of a head car, six middle cars, and a tail car. The train was moving through the Pingtu
tunnel at a speed of 300 km·h−1, Figure 9. The tunnel is 1921 m long and locates on the Beijing–
Guangzhou high-speed railway in China. The test system consists of dynamic pressure sensors,
Appl. Sci. 2020,8.10,
Figure 3664independence and time step verification: (a) Grid independence visualized by
Grid ; time9 of 20
step independence visualized by (b) ; (c) velocity magnitude; (d) .

2.6. Validation
2.6. Validation
The
The experimental
experimental datadata from
from aa previously
previously performed
performed full-scale
full-scale test
test were
were used
used for
for the
the validation
validation
of numerical accuracy. The real CRH2 train used in the experimental investigation
of numerical accuracy. The real CRH2 train used in the experimental investigation had eight had eight cars,
cars,
consisting
consisting ofofaahead
headcar,
car,sixsix
middle
middlecars, andand
cars, a tail
a car.
tail The
car. train was moving
The train was movingthrough the Pingtu
through tunnel
the Pingtu
at a speed of 300 km·h −1 , Figure 8. The tunnel is 1921 m long and locates on the Beijing–Guangzhou
tunnel at a speed of 300 km·h , Figure 9. The tunnel is 1921 m long and locates on the Beijing–
−1
high-speed
Guangzhourailway in China.
high-speed The test
railway system The
in China. consists
test of dynamic
system pressure
consists of sensors,
dynamicmulti-core
pressure shielded
sensors,
signal lines, a multi-channel amplifier, an A/D converter, a computer, and a GPS
multi-core shielded signal lines, a multi-channel amplifier, an A/D converter, a computer, and a GPSspeed measurement
system. Those pressure
speed measurement sensors
system. havepressure
Those been calibrated
sensorsbefore
have thebeentest so that the
calibrated measurement
before the test soerror
thatwas
the
less than 1%. The length of the tunnel, speed, and the number of cars in the numerical
measurement error was less than 1%. The length of the tunnel, speed, and the number of cars in the validation is the
same as that
numerical in the real
validation is train experiment.
the same as that in the real train experiment.

Figure 8.
Figure 9. The
The Pingtu
Pingtu tunnel used for
tunnel used for real
real train
train experiment.
experiment.

A comparison
comparison of of Cp between
betweenthe theexperimental
experimentaland and numerical
numerical results
results is shown
is shown in Figure
in Figure 10. In9.
In Figure
Figure 9a,the
10a, themonitoring
monitoringpoint
pointlocates
locateson onthe
theouter
outersurface
surfaceof ofthe
thefourth
fourthtrain
trainatatthe
the middle
middle height.
height.
In Figure
Figure 9b,10b, thethe
point was
point 415415
was m away
m away from the the
from tunnel entrance
tunnel and 1.5
entrance andm1.5 above the ground.
m above A good
the ground. A
agreement
good agreement is observed between
is observed the experimental
between the experimentaland and
numerical datadata
numerical for the pressure
for the measured
pressure measuredon
both
on boththe the
traintrain
andandthe wall of the
the wall oftunnel. The maximum
the tunnel. The maximum errors of theofpositive
errors and the
the positive andnegative peak
the negative
C p on
peak
Appl. the
Sci. train
on
2020, thexbody
10, train
FOR are around
body
PEER are 9%
REVIEW and 5%,
around respectively,
9% and while corresponding
5%, respectively, quantities quantities
while corresponding observed
10 of 21
on the wall
observed onof thethe tunnel
wall aretunnel
of the around are9% and 8%.
around 9% and The8%.differences betweenbetween
The differences the numerical results
the numerical
and theand
results
geometry. experimental
Thethephysical data
experimental are data
expected
real-train due
are expected
set-up to the
contains simplifications
due
the to
rail,the side conducted
thesimplifications in the CFD
steps, theconducted
contact geometry.
lineinand
the other
CFD
The
small physical
details real-train set-up contains
that are removed the rail, the
in the numerical side steps,
model, the in
resulting contact line and
a smaller other small
simulation details
blockage as
that are removed
compared to that in in the
the numerical
experiment. model, resulting
This change in in
thea blockage
smaller simulation
affects theblockage
flow fieldasand
compared
decreasesto
in the experiment. This change in the blockage affects the flow field and decreases Cp [31].
that[34].

10.Comparison
Figure 9. Comparisonofofthe
thereal
realtrain
trainexperiment
experimentand
andsimulation:
simulation: (a)
(a) On
On the
the train
train body;
body; (b)
(b) on
on the
the
of the
inner wall of the tunnel.
tunnel.

3. Analysis and Discussion

3. Analysis and Discussion
In this section, the aerodynamic forces, pressure on the train and inner tunnel wall, flow structures,
In this section, the aerodynamic forces, pressure on the train and inner tunnel wall, flow
and velocity field
structures, and aroundfield
velocity the train,
aroundarethe
analyzed foranalyzed
train, are the sake of
forshowing
the sakethe aerodynamic
of showing performance
the aerodynamic
of the high-speed
performance trains
of the among trains
high-speed three cases.
among three cases.

3.1. Aerodynamic Load Coefficients

Figure 11 reports the histories of aerodynamic coefficients of three cars in Cases 1–3. The “in tunnel”
highlights the period from when head car is entering the tunnel (t = 1.03 s) to the instant the tail car is
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 10 of 20

3.1. Aerodynamic Load Coefficients

Figure 10 reports the histories of aerodynamic coefficients of three cars in Cases 1–3. The “in tunnel”
highlights the period from when head car is entering the tunnel (t = 1.03 s) to the instant the tail car is
leaving the tunnel (t = 4.9 s). As to Cd , a slight difference is observed when the train is in two open-air
regions before or after crossing the tunnel, showing the drag is independent on the ground scenarios.
However, when the train passes through the tunnel, Case 3 shows a smaller amplitude compared to
Case 1 and Case 2. It is also can be seen that the drag on the head and tail cars is more effected than the
middle car. From this, it can be believed that the different ground scenarios outside the tunnel could
affect the aerodynamic drag of the train running in the tunnel, and the tunnel junction with the bridge
gives a lower drag fluctuation for a running train inside the tunnel.
The side (Cs ) force, lift (Cs ) force and momentum (Cm ) show different trends from the drag
force coefficient, as shown in Figure 10d–l. The train in Case 3 experiences lower momentum, side
and lift forces in the two open-air regions. Then, it can be seen that the momentum, side and lift
forces also fluctuate during the period when the train is entering and leaving the tunnel, and the
smaller fluctuations are also observed in Case 3, which means the tunnel junction with the bridge
also gives lower fluctuations of momentum, side, and lift forces on the train when crossing the tunnel
under crosswind.
The peak to peak values of the aerodynamic coefficients are listed in Table 4. The largest changes
of Cd are observed in Case 1. The reason for this can be attributed to the positive Cd peak, which for
Case 1 it has the highest value (Figure 10a–c). The largest changes of Cs and Cl are shown at Case 2,
Figure 10d–i. The head car is affected more as compared to the middle and tail cars, when the train
entering the tunnel. The train exiting the tunnel results in large changes in Cd and Cl values in Case 2,
compared to other two cases, shown in Figure 10a–c and g–i. Figure 10c shows that Case 2 causes a
strong negative Cd peak at moment when the train leaving the tunnel. The Cs coefficient at the exit of
the tunnel was found to change more in Case 1 than in the other two cases, showing that maximum
value of Cs in Case 1 is greater than that of two other cases (Figure 10d–f). Similarly, Cs , the changes of
Cm for the Case 1 and 2 are larger than Case 3 because their higher values of the Cm occurs in both two
open-air regions, as shown in Figure 10j–l.

Table 4. Amplitude values of aerodynamic coefficients.

Entering the Tunnel Leaving the Tunnel

HC MC TC HC MC TC
Case 1 0.461 0.105 0.189 0.220 0.096 0.446
Cd Case 2 0.444 0.100 0.156 0.245 0.105 0.549
Case 3 0.401 0.085 0.141 0.113 0.074 0.279
Case 1 3.179 1.613 1.199 2.273 1.166 0.823
Cs Case 2 3.231 1.802 1.428 2.034 1.034 0.720
Case 3 2.231 1.148 0.893 1.803 0.922 0.705
Case 1 1.253 0.908 0.811 1.311 0.978 0.453
Cl Case 2 1.418 0.993 0.818 1.513 1.048 0.556
Case 3 1.073 0.877 0.705 1.143 0.758 0.438
Case 1 1.137 0.657 0.385 0.823 0.513 0.345
Cm Case 2 1.152 0.714 0.505 0.864 0.471 0.287
Case 3 0.985 0.536 0.243 0.676 0.410 0.162

Overall, when the train enters the tunnel, the head car suffers the largest aerodynamic coefficients.
When the train leaves the tunnel, except of Cd , the head car still experiences the largest aerodynamic
coefficients. Furthermore, it is observed that compare the worst case, the tunnel junction with the
bridge gives a result that the amplitude of Cd , Cs , Cl , and Cm decrease by 17%, 34%, 18%, and 26%,
respectively when the train is entering the tunnel. While the train exits of the tunnel, the amplitude of
Cd , Cs , Cl , and Cm reduce approximately 48%, 28%, 25%, and 26%, respectively.
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2020,
2020, 10,
10, x3664
FOR PEER REVIEW 1211of
of 21
20

Figure 10. Cont.

Appl.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10,
Sci. 2020, 10, 3664
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of
13 of 20
21

Figure 10. Curves of aerodynamic coefficients for three cars: the head car (HC), the middle car (MC),
Figure 11. Curves of aerodynamic coefficients for three cars: the head car (HC), the middle car (MC),
and the tail car (TC). (a) Cd of HC (b) Cd of MC; (c) Cd of TC; (d) Cs of HC; (e) Cs of MC; (f) Cs of TC;
and the tail car (TC). (a) of HC (b) of MC; (c) of TC; (d) of HC; (e) of MC; (f) of
(g) Cl of HC; (h) Cl of MC; (i) Cl of TC; (j) Cm of HC; (k) Cm of MC; (l) Cm of TC.
TC; (g) of HC; (h) of MC; (i) of TC; (j) of HC; (k) of MC; (l) of TC.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 13 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21

3.2.Pressure
3.2. PressureCoefficients
Coefficientsofofthe
theTrain
Train
Figure1112shows
Figure showsthe the histories
Cp histories at the
at the measuring
measuring points
points on the
on the middle
middle car. car. is positive
Cp is positive on the on
the windward
windward but negative
but negative on theon the leeward
leeward side of side of the
the train trainthe
when when
trainthe trainunder
travels travelscrosswind.
under crosswind.
The Cp
The differences in three cases are so small when trains are in the open-air regions.
differences in three cases are so small when trains are in the open-air regions. A significant difference A significant
ofdifference
Cp between of three between
cases on three
both cases on bothand
windward windward
leewardand leeward
sides of the sides
train,of theobserved
was train, waswhen
observed
the
when
train the train
moving moving
through the through
tunnel. Itthe tunnel. It istointeresting
is interesting to note
note that Case that
3 still Casesmaller
shows 3 still shows
valuessmaller
of the
values ofpeaks
negative the negative
on both peaks
sides. on both sides.
Whenthe
When thetrain
trainenters
entersthethetunnel,
tunnel,Cp on onboth
bothsides
sidesstarts
startstotochange
changerapidly,
rapidly,resulting
resultinginintwotwo
negativepeaks
negative peakswith withlarge
largedifferences
differencesininthree
threecases.
cases. Figure
Figure1112shows
showsthat thatCp ininCase
Case22isisslightly
slightly
smalleratatthe
smaller thefirst
firstpeak
peakand
andmuchmuchsmaller
smalleratatthe
thesecondary
secondarypeakpeakasascompared
comparedtotoCase Case1.1.Then,
Then,ititcan
can
beseen
be seenthat
thatCase
Case3 3also
alsoshows
showssmaller
smallervalues
valuesofofthe
thenegative
negativepeaks
peakson onboth
bothsides,
sides,which
whichmeans
meansaa
smallerpressure
smaller pressurechange
changeon onthe
thetrain
trainsurface
surfaceisisprovided.
provided.ItItillustrates
illustratesthatthatthe
thetunnel
tunneljunction
junctionwith
with
thebridge
the bridgegives
givesaabetter
betterperformance
performanceofofpressure
pressureon onboth
bothsides
sidesofofthe
thetrain
trainwhen
whencrossing
crossinga atunnel
tunnel
undercrosswind.
under crosswind.

Figure Cp curves
11. 12.
Figure of the
curves measuring
of the points
measuring onon
points thethe
middle
middlecar:
car:(a)
(a)windward
windwardside;
side; (b)
(b) leeward side.
leeward side.

To explore the reason for the largest pressure variation observed in Case 1, an analysis of the
To explore the reason for the largest pressure variation observed in Case 1, an analysis of the
surface pressure distribution on both sides of the train is presented in Figure 12 during the process of
surface pressure distribution on both sides of the train is presented in Figure 13 during the process
the train entering (t1–4 ) and exiting the tunnel (t5–8 ). When the train is entering the tunnel, the surface
of the train entering (t1–4) and exiting the tunnel (t5–8). When the train is entering the tunnel, the surface
pressure on the windward side presents a smaller change than that on the leeward side, as shown in
pressure on the windward side presents a smaller change than that on the leeward side, as shown in
Figure 12a. A small difference on the windward side is observed from t1 to t2 . However, the surface
Figure 13a. A small difference on the windward side is observed from t1 to t2. However, the surface
pressure of the head car starts to increase at t3 and the surface pressure of the tail car begins to decrease
pressure of the head car starts to increase at t3 and the surface pressure of the tail car begins to
at t4 . The change in pressure on the middle car is not significant.
decrease at t4. The change in pressure on the middle car is not significant.
Due to the crosswind, the leeward side of the train experiences negative pressure when the train
Due to the crosswind, the leeward side of the train experiences negative pressure when the train
approaches the entrance of the tunnel at t1 , Figure 12. The surface pressure of the head car suddenly
approaches the entrance of the tunnel at t1, Figure 13. The surface pressure of the head car suddenly
increases and becomes positive as the head car enters the tunnel at t2 . This increase of the pressure
increases and becomes positive as the head car enters the tunnel at t2. This increase of the pressure
continues until the middle car completely enters into the tunnel at t3 . Once the train has entirely
continues until the middle car completely enters into the tunnel at t3. Once the train has entirely
entered the tunnel, the surface pressure on the train starts to decrease, as seen in Figure 12a at t4 .
entered the tunnel, the surface pressure on the train starts to decrease, as seen in Figure 13a at t4.
As long as the train stays in the tunnel, no crosswind affects the flow around it, so the surface
As long as the train stays in the tunnel, no crosswind affects the flow around it, so the surface
pressure decreases significantly and becomes negative at time t5, as shown in Figure 12b. When the
pressure decreases significantly and becomes negative at time t5, as shown in Figure 13b. When the
train starts to exit the tunnel, the pressure begins increasing with larger change on the windward
train starts to exit the tunnel, the pressure begins increasing with larger change on the windward side
side of the train (see the period from t6 to t8 ). The surface pressure of each car on the windward
of the train (see the period from t6 to t8). The surface pressure of each car on the windward side
side increases and becomes slightly positive when they run into the open-air region. Once the train
increases and becomes slightly positive when they run into the open-air region. Once the train
completely exits the tunnel, the pressure on both sides of the train is generally positive and negative,
completely exits the tunnel, the pressure on both sides of the train is generally positive and negative,
respectively, due to the effect of the crosswind on the train (see the time at t8 in Figure 12b).
respectively, due to the effect of the crosswind on the train (see the time at t8 in Figure 13b).
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 14 of 20

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

Figure
Figure 13.
12. Surface
Surfacepressure
pressuredistributions
distributionsononthe train
the in in
train Case 1: (a)
Case Entering
1: (a) the the
Entering tunnel; (b) exiting
tunnel; the
(b) exiting
tunnel.
the tunnel.

3.3. Pressure
3.3. Pressure Coefficients
Coefficients on
on the
the Tunnel
Tunnel Wall
Wall
In this
In this section,
section, the
the pressure
pressure fluctuations
fluctuations induced
induced by by the
the train
train pass-by
pass-by on on the
the tunnel
tunnel wall
wall isis
investigated. Figure 13 shows
investigated. Figure 14 shows the the C histories of several monitoring points along the
phistories of several monitoring points along the tunnel wall. At tunnel wall.
At the entrance of the tunnel (S 2 ),
the entrance of the tunnel (S2), the maximum the maximum pressuredifference
pressure differenceamong
amongthree
threecases
casesisis found
found when
when
the train is entering, as shown in Figure 13a. On the other hand, the surface pressure
the train is entering, as shown in Figure 14a. On the other hand, the surface pressure at the exit of the at the exit of the
tunnel (S
tunnel (S18
18))shows
showsthethemaximum
maximumdifference
difference among
among cases cases when
when the the train
train exits
exits the
the tunnel,
tunnel, Figure
Figure 14c.
13c.
Figure 13b shows that the distinct
Figure 14b shows that the distinct negative negative C p peaks are observed in all three cases, when
peaks are observed in all three cases, when the the train
moves
train closercloser
moves to thetomiddle of theoftunnel
the middle (S10 ). (S
the tunnel As the train is traveling into the tunnel, there is a large
10). As the train is traveling into the tunnel, there is a
change
large in thein
change surface pressure
the surface along the
pressure alongtunnel wall inwall
the tunnel all three
in allcases.
threeItcases.
is interesting to noticetothat
It is interesting the
notice
that the pressure fluctuation is recorded after the “in tunnel” period, which means that the train-
induced wind still affects the flow inside the tunnel for a certain period after the train has left the
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 15 of 20

Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2020,
2020, 10,
10, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 16 of
16 of 21
21
pressure fluctuation is recorded after the “in tunnel” period, which means that the train-induced wind
tunnel.
still
tunnel. Thethe
affects
The peaks ofinside
flowof
peaks pressure in Case
Casefor
the tunnel
pressure in 33 show
show somewhat
a certain lower
period after
somewhat lower values
the as compared
train has
values as compared to the
theThe
left the tunnel.
to other two
peaks
other two
cases.
of pressure in Case 3 show somewhat lower values as compared to the other two cases.
cases.

Figure 13.
Figure 14. C history
14. history at monitoring
monitoringpoints
pointson
onthe
thecross
crosssection
sectionofof
oftunnel
tunnelwall
wallat:at:
at:(a)
(a)S S
S2; (b)
(b)SS
S10
10; (c) S18.
Figure p historyatatmonitoring points on the cross section tunnel wall (a) 2 ;2;(b) 10 ; ;(c)
(c)SS1818.

The peak-to-peak
The
The peak-to-peak valuesvalues of atdifferent
of Cp at
at differentpoints
different pointson
points on the
on the tunnel
the tunnel wall
tunnel wall are
wall are presented
are presented in
presented in Figure
Figure 14,
15,
15,
with
with the
with the aim
the aim
aim to to study
to study the
study the variations
the variations
variations ofof maximum
of maximum pressure
maximum pressure along
pressure along
along the the length
the length
length of of the
of the tunnel
the tunnel in three
tunnel in three all
three all
all
cases. All maximum difference
cases.
cases. difference values
difference values observed
values observed in
observed ineach
in eachpoints
each pointsat
points atSS
at S1–19 In
1–19 are shown. In general, Case 1
1–19

and
and Case
and Case 3
Case3 show show
3 show the
the largestlargest
the largest and
and smallest smallest peak-to-peak
peak-to-peak
and smallest distributions
distributions
peak-to-peak along
along the tunnel
distributions the tunnel
along wall,
the tunnel wall,
respectively.
wall,
respectively.
Therefore,
respectively. Therefore,
it isTherefore, it
confirmeditthat is confirmed that
different ground
is confirmed different
conditions
that different ground conditions
at junctions
ground conditions have at junctions
at effects have
on the
junctions have effects
pressure on
effects on
on
the tunnel
the
the pressure
pressurewall, onwhen
on the tunnel
the tunnel
the train wall, when
moves
wall, when the train
through
the train movesand
the tunnel
moves through the tunnel
is subjected
through the tunnel and is
to crosswind
and is subjected
subjected
in the outer to
to
crosswind
regions.
crosswind The in the outer
inpeak-to-peak regions.
the outer regions. The
of pressurepeak-to-peak
in the middle
The peak-to-peak of pressure
of of in
the tunnel
pressure the
in the middle
is the of
largest
middle the tunnel
value
of the is the
in allisthree
tunnel largest
cases.
the largest
value in
Another
value in observation
all three
all three cases.
cases. Another
fromAnother observation
this figure from
is that the from
observation this figure
peak-to-peak
this figure is that
values
is that the
of Cthe peak-to-peak
p reduce sharply as
peak-to-peak values of
the points
values of
reduce
approachsharply
the as the
entrance points
and approach
the exit of thethe entrance
tunnel. and the
reduce sharply as the points approach the entrance and the exit of the tunnel. exit of the tunnel.

Figure 15.
Figure Peak to
14. Peak to peak
peak values of Cp on
values of onthe
thetunnel
tunnelwall.
wall.
Figure 15. Peak to peak values of on the tunnel wall.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 16 of 20

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21

3.4. Flow Structures
3.4.Figure
Flow Structures
15 shows the instantaneous flow structures around the train from the leeward side of the
train. The flow structures
Figure 16 shows were visualized
the instantaneous flowusingstructures isosurfaces
around of thethe second
train invariant
from the leeward ofside
the ofvelocity
the
gradient
train. The tensor, = 100, colored
flowQstructures with Cp . Two
were visualized using time instances,
isosurfaces ofwhen the head
the second car hasofjust
invariant the entered
velocitythe
tunnel (t2 ) tensor,
gradient and exited intocolored
Q = 100, the open-air
with 2 region
. Two time (t6 ) were chosen
instances, when for the head
flow car
analysis in entered
has just all threethecases.
tunnel
Figure(t2) and
15a–cexited
show into thethe
that open-air
bogies2(W region
1 ) and(t6 ) were chosen
inter-carriage for the
gaps flow analysis
between two in all three
adjacent cases.
cars (W2 )
Figure 16a–c show that the bogies (W
lead to flow separations, when the train is entering the tunnel. The head car, being already in2)the
1) and inter-carriage gaps between two adjacent cars (W
lead toisflow
tunnel, separations,
covered with flow when the trainatishigh
structures entering the tunnel.
pressure; whileThe lowhead car, being
pressure for thealready in theare
structures
tunnel, is
observed covered
around thewith flowand
middle structures
tail cars,atsince
high they pressure; while
are still in thelowopen-air
pressure1 for the structures
region. Lower pressureare
observed around the middle and tail cars, since they are still in the
around the head car and higher pressure around the tail car are observed in Case 3 as compared to open-air 1 region. Lower pressure
around
Case 1 and theCase
head2,car and higher
leading pressure
to a smaller around difference
pressure the tail car between
are observed in Case
the three 3 as
cars compared
when to is
the train
Case 1 and Case 2, leading to a smaller pressure difference between
entering the tunnel. Note that a flow separation (W3 ) with low pressure is formed from the leeward the three cars when the train is
entering the tunnel. Note that a flow separation (W3) with low pressure is formed from the leeward
side of the head car to the tail car.
side of the head car to the tail car.
Figure 15d–f show the instants when the train is leaving the tunnel. Here, several waves are
Figure 16d–f show the instants when the train is leaving the tunnel. Here, several waves are
generated from the bogies (W4 ) and windshields (W5 ). However, these waves are smaller and denser
generated from the bogies (W4) and windshields (W5). However, these waves are smaller and denser than
than W1 and W2 . The flow structures around the head car are similar, and the biggest difference among
W1 and W2. The flow structures around the head car are similar, and the biggest difference among the
the three cases is the flow around the tail car and in the wake. The pressure of the flow structures
three cases is the flow around the tail car and in the wake. The pressure of the flow structures around the
around
tail carthe tail carinisCase
is lower lower in shown
1, as Case 1,inasFigure
shown16d, in Figure
while the15d,pressure
while the pressure
in this regioninincreases
this region increases
(although
(although
still negative) in Case 2, as seen in Figure 16e, and approaches 0 in Case 3 (Figure 16f). It shows that a15f).
still negative) in Case 2, as seen in Figure 15e, and approaches 0 in Case 3 (Figure
It smaller
shows that change a smaller change
of the flow of the
pressure flow the
around pressure
train isaround
observed theintrain
Case is3. observed in Case 3.

(a) (d)

(b) (e)

Figure 15. Cont.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 17 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21

(c) (f)
Figure
Figure 15.16.Isosurface
Isosurfaceof(c)
ofQ Q== 100
100 coloured
colouredwithwith Cp. .(a)(a)Case
Case 1 at t2 =t21.285
1 at s; (b)
= 1.285 s;(f)
Case 2 at t22 =at1.285
(b) Case t2 = s; (c) s;
1.285
Case 3 at t = 1.285 s; (d)
t2 = 1.285 s; Case 1 at t = 4.369 s;
1 at t6 = 4.369 (e) Case 2 at t = 4.369 s; and (f) Case 3 at t = 4.369 s.
(c)Figure
Case 316.
at Isosurface Case21atattt62 = t6 = s;
2
of(d)
Q =Case
6
with s; (e)
. (a)Case
6 4.369 s;s; (b)
andCase
(f) Case
2 at t3
6
100 coloured = 1.285 2 =at
1.285 4.369
(c) s.
Case 3 at t2 = 1.285 s; (d) Case 1 at t6 = 4.369 s; (e) Case 2 at t6 = 4.369 s; and (f) Case 3 at t6 = 4.369 s.
3.5.3.5.
Flow Velocity
Flow Velocity
3.5.Figure
Flow
Figure Velocity
1617 shows
shows the thestreamlines
streamlines in the
in horizontal
the horizontal plane atplane1.7 m at above1.7 them rail top. the
above Tworail time-top.
Twoinstances are visualized,
time-instances are the first one
visualized, therepresents
first one the moment the
represents the train
moment is entering
the the tunnel,
train is enteringwhilethe
Figure 17 shows the streamlines in the horizontal plane at 1.7 m above the rail top. Two time-
the second,
tunnel,
instances while areshows
the the exitthe
second,
visualized, instant.
shows first the As exit
one seen in Figure
instant.
represents theAs17a–c,
seendue
moment intheto the
Figure
train effect
16a–c, of the
is entering duecrosswind,
to the
the tunnel, a while
effectwake
of the
and
crosswind, a
the second,trailing
a wake vortex
showsand roll up from
a trailing
the exit instant. the
vortex separation
As seen rollinup on the
from17a–c,
Figure roof of
the separationthe train
due to theon when
theof
effect the
roof train
theof is entering
the train awhen
crosswind, thethe
wake
tunnel
train and
andisa entering some
trailing vortex parts
the tunnel of
roll upand the
from train
some are still in
parts of theontrain
the separation the open-air
the roofare still region
of theintrain 1,
the open-air which
when theregion shows a reasonable
train is1,entering
which shows the
agreement
a reasonable
tunnel and agreementwith the investigation
some partswith of the thetrainof Yang
investigation [21]. Due
are still inofthe to
Yang the blocking
[18]. Due
open-air region of the
to the tunnel
blocking
1, which wall,
shows the
of the crosswind
tunnel wall,
a reasonable
will not affect the inside of the tunnel, which[21].means the crosswind
theagreement
crosswind withwill not
the affect
investigation the insideof Yang of the tunnel,
Due to which
the meansonly
blocking ofthetheimpinges
crosswind
tunnel wall, the outside
only
theimpinges part of
crosswind the
the train
will not and
affect provides a distinct lateral force on this part. Therefore, a shear force between the inside
outside part of the
the inside
train and of the tunnel, which
provides a distinctmeans the crosswind
lateral force on this only part.
impinges the outside
Therefore, a shearpart of
force
and outside parts is formed. Those regions with low and high velocities are easily to be distinguished.
the train
between theand provides
inside a distinctparts
and outside lateral force on this
is formed. Those part. Therefore,
regions with alow shear and force
highbetween
velocities theareinside
easily
Two low speed regions are observed on the leeward side of the train in the region close to the junction
to and outside parts isTwo
be distinguished. formed.low Those
speedregions
regionswith low and high
are observed on thevelocities
leeward aresideeasily
of to
thebetrain
distinguished.
in the region
and in
Two the far wake. Another observationon theis that theside twoof lowthespeed zones are smaller in the
Case 3 than
close tolowthespeed
junction regionsandare in observed
the far wake. leeward
Another observation train
is in thethe
that region
twoclose
low to speedjunction
zones are
in
and thein other
the fartwo cases.
wake. Another observation is that the two low speed zones are smaller in Case 3 than
smallerOnce in Case the 3 than
train is in the other
leaving two cases.
the tunnel, the head car is suddenly affected by the crosswind, resulting
in the other
Onceseparation two cases.
the train is leaving the tunnel, the head car is suddenly affected by the crosswind, resulting
in flow Once the train and low velocity
is leaving the tunnel, regiontheon head thecarleeward side ofaffected
is suddenly the train,byas theshown in Figure
crosswind, 17d–
resulting
in f.flow
At separation
the same andthe
time, lowmiddle
velocity and region
tail on the
cars which leeward
are side
still in of
the the train,and
tunnel as shown
only in Figure
affected by 16d–f.
the
in flow separation and low velocity region on the leeward side of the train, as shown in Figure 17d–
Attunnel
the same time, the middle and tail cars which are still in the tunnel
effect, which means, the flow velocity around the cars inside the tunnel is much different from and only affected by the tunnel
f. At the same time, the middle and tail cars which are still in the tunnel and only affected by the
effect,
the which
part means,the
outside thetunnel.
flow velocity around the part
cars inside the the tunnel is much different from the part
tunnel effect, which means, theOnly flow the outside
velocity around theof cars train
inside isthesuffering
tunnel isfrom muchthe crosswind,
different from
outside
resulting the intunnel.
a higher Only the force outside part of the train isforming
suffering from the between
crosswind, theresulting
inside andin a
the part outside the lateral
tunnel. Onlyonthe thisoutside
part, andpartalsoof the trainshear force
is suffering from the crosswind,
higher
outside lateral
parts. force on this the
In addition, part, and also forming
corresponding low shear
speed forceoutside
between the inside andleeward
outside parts.
resulting in a higher lateral force on this part, and also region
forming shear the force tunnel on the
between the inside side and
of the
In outside
addition, train is smaller in Case 3 as compared to the other two cases.
parts. In addition, the corresponding low speed region outside the tunnel on the leeward side is
the corresponding low speed region outside the tunnel on the leeward side of the train
smaller in
of the train Case 3 as compared
is smaller in Case 3toasthe other two
compared cases.
to the other two cases.

(a) (d)
(a) (d)

Figure 16. Cont.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 18 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 21

(b) (e)

(c) (f)
Figure
Figure 16.17.Streamlines
Streamlinesand and velocity
velocity distributions.
distributions.(a) (a)Case
Case1 at = 1.285
t2 =t21.285
1 at s; (b)
s; Case t2 = s;
2 at t22 =at1.285
(b) Case (c) s;
1.285
Case33atatt2t2= =
(c)Case 1.285 s; (d)
1.285 Case
s; (d) 1 at1 tat
Case 6 =
6 =t4.369 s;
4.369(e)
s;Case
(e) 2
Caseat t6=
2 4.369
at t6 = s; and
4.369 (f)
s; Case
and (f)3 at
Caset6 =3 4.369.
at t6 = 4.369.

4. 4.
Conclusions
Conclusions
This
Thispaper
paperpresents
presentsaanumerical
numerical investigation
investigation of of the
theaerodynamic
aerodynamicperformance
performance of of a high-speed
a high-speed
train
train passingthrough
passing throughdifferent
differenttunnel
tunnel junctions
junctions under
under crosswind.
crosswind.Three Threeground
ground conditions
conditions at the
at the
junction
junction ofofthe
thetunnel
tunnelhave
havebeen
beenstudied:
studied: A A flat
flatground,
ground,an anembankment,
embankment, andanda bridge
a bridge configuration.
configuration.
This
This studyindicates
study indicatesthat thatthe
theground
ground conditions
conditions outside
outsidethe thetunnel
tunnelhave havesignificant
significant effects onon
effects thethe
aerodynamic performance of high-speed trains. When suffering from
aerodynamic performance of high-speed trains. When suffering from crosswind, the high-speed train crosswind, the high-speed train
experiences
experiences thethe smallestaerodynamic
smallest aerodynamicforces
forceswhenwhenitittravels
travelson onthe
thebridge
bridge approaching
approaching the the entrance
entrance of
of the tunnel. In particular, the bridge case shows the lowest surface
the tunnel. In particular, the bridge case shows the lowest surface pressure on the body of pressure on the body of thethe
train
train
and the tunnel, and the lowest pressure gradient at the junctions, as compared
and the tunnel, and the lowest pressure gradient at the junctions, as compared to the other two cases. to the other two cases.
The variation of the pressure on the train body was found to be stronger on the leeward side of
The variation of the pressure on the train body was found to be stronger on the leeward side
the train during the entrance into the tunnel and on the windward side during the exit from the
of the train during the entrance into the tunnel and on the windward side during the exit from the
tunnel. A slightly larger change in the pressure coefficient at the junction locations is observed, while
tunnel. A slightly larger change in the pressure coefficient at the junction locations is observed, while
the middle part of the tunnel experiences the largest peak-to-peak pressure. The integrated
the middle part of the tunnel experiences the largest peak-to-peak pressure. The integrated interaction
interaction of the moving train, the tunnel, and the crosswind results in the change of the flow field
of both
the moving
inside and train, the tunnel,
outside and the
the tunnel. crosswind
In addition, theresults
smallest in effect
the change
on theof the flow field
surrounding flowboth
andinside
its
and outside the tunnel. In addition, the
structures is observed in the bridge configuration. smallest effect on the surrounding flow and its structures is
observed Theinresults
the bridge
in thisconfiguration.
study show that a bridge at the entrance and the exit of a tunnel contributes
The results
to the development in thisofstudy
smallershow that a bridge
aerodynamic at the
forces. entrance
Although andathe
such exit of a tunnel
configuration is notcontributes
feasible in to
thealldevelopment
situations, the of present
smallerstudyaerodynamic
has shown forces. Although such
the differences between a configuration
three possible is not feasible
scenarios. in all
This
situations, the present
study represents study
a first has shown
step toward the differences
a deeper analysis of between
the flow at three possible
tunnel junctions.scenarios. This study
The knowledge
represents
gained from a first
thisstep
can be toward a deeper
used to adjust theanalysis
operationof the flow facing
of trains at tunnel suchjunctions.
conditionsThe or toknowledge
suggest
improvements
gained from thisincan thebedesigning
used to process
adjust theof the junctions.
operation ofFuture
trains work
facingissuch
now conditions
under consideration to
or to suggest
better analyzein and
improvements estimate the
the designing safetyofimplications
process the junctions.that different
Future workenvironment
is now underconditions and to
consideration
junction
better designs
analyze and can bring the
estimate to asafety
high-speed train model.
implications that different environment conditions and junction
designs can bring to a high-speed train model.
Author Contributions: conceptualization, X.M.; data analysis, K.H.; writing—original draft preparation, K.H.
and X.M.; writing—review and editing, G.M., J.Z. and S.K.; supervision, G.G. and S.K.; project administration,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 19 of 20

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.M.; data analysis, K.H.; writing—original draft preparation, K.H.
and X.M.; writing—review and editing, G.M., J.Z. and S.K.; supervision, G.G. and S.K.; project administration, H.W.
and M.H.; funding acquisition, X.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development of China, grant number
2017YFB1201302 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 51605044.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge the computing resources and the data of the full-scale high-speed
train experiment provided by the High-speed Train Research Center of Central South University, China.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Tian, H.Q. Review of research on high-speed railway aerodynamics in China. Transp. Saf. Environ. 2019, 1,
1–21. [CrossRef]
2. Baker, C.J. A framework for the consideration of the effects of crosswinds on trains. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
2013, 123, 130–142. [CrossRef]
3. Giappino, S.; Melzi, S.; Tomasini, G. High-speed freight trains for intermodal transportation: Wind tunnel
study on the aerodynamic coefficients of container wagons. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018, 175, 111–119.
[CrossRef]
4. Howe, M.S.; Iida, M.; Fukuda, T. Influence of an unvented tunnel entrance hood on the compression wave
generated by a high-speed train. J. Fluids Struct. 2003, 17, 833–853. [CrossRef]
5. Yang, Q.S.; Song, J.H.; Yang, G.W. A moving model rig with a scale ratio of 1/8 for high speed train
aerodynamics. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2016, 152, 50–58. [CrossRef]
6. Krajnović, S.; Ringqvist, P.; Nakade, K.; Basara, B. Large eddy simulation of the flow around a simplified
train moving through a crosswind flow. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2012, 110, 86–99. [CrossRef]
7. He, X.H.; Zou, Y.F.; Wang, H.F.; Han, Y.; Shi, K. Aerodynamic characteristics of a trailing rail vehicles on
viaduct based on still wind tunnel experiments. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2014, 135, 22–33. [CrossRef]
8. Krajnović, S. Shape optimization of high-speed trains for improved aerodynamic performance. Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit 2009, 223, 439–452. [CrossRef]
9. Hemida, H.; Baker, C. Large-eddy simulation of the flow around a freight wagon subjected to a crosswind.
Comput. Fluids 2010, 39, 1944–1956. [CrossRef]
10. Hemida, H.; Krajnović, S. LES study of the influence of the nose shape and yaw angles on flow structures
around trains. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2010, 98, 34–46. [CrossRef]
11. Flynn, D.; Hemida, H.; Baker, C. On the effect of crosswinds on the slipstream of a freight train and associated
effects. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2016, 156, 14–28. [CrossRef]
12. Li, X.F.; Zhou, D.; Jia, L.R.; Yang, M.Z. Effects of yaw angle on the unsteady aerodynamic performance of the
pantograph of a high-speed train under crosswind. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018, 182, 49–60. [CrossRef]
13. Zhang, L.; Liu, H.; Stoll, N.; Thurow, K. Influence of tunnel aerodynamic effects by slope of equal-transect
ring oblique tunnel portal. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2017, 169, 106–116. [CrossRef]
14. Lu, Y.B.; Wang, T.T.; Yang, M.Z.; Qian, B.S. The influence of reduced cross-section on pressure transients
from high-speed trains intersecting in a tunnel. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2020. [CrossRef]
15. Niu, J.-Q.; Zhou, D.; Liu, F.; Yuan, Y.-P. Effect of train length on fluctuating aerodynamic pressure wave in
tunnels and method for determining the amplitude of pressure wave on trains. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
2018, 80, 277–289. [CrossRef]
16. He, K.; Gao, G.-J.; Wang, J.-B.; Fu, M.; Miao, X.-J.; Zhang, J. Performance of a turbine driven by train-induced
wind in a tunnel. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 82, 416–427. [CrossRef]
17. Liu, T.; Chen, Z.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, J. A CFD analysis of the aerodynamics of a highspeed train passing
through a windbreak transition under crosswind. Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. 2018, 12, 137–151.
18. Yang, W.; Deng, E.; Lei, M.; Zhang, P.; Yin, R. Flow structure and aerodynamic behavior evolution during
train entering tunnel with entrance in crosswind. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018, 175, 229–243. [CrossRef]
19. Diedrichs, B.; Sima, M.; Orellano, A.; Tengstrand, H. Crosswind stability of a high-speed train on a high
embankment. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit 2007, 221, 205–225. [CrossRef]
20. Shur, M.L.; Spalart, P.R.; Strelets, M.K.; Travin, A.K. A hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and
wall-modelled LES capabilities. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2008, 29, 1638–1649. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3664 20 of 20

21. Menter, F.R.; Kuntz, M.; Langtry, R. Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model.
Proc. Fourth Int. Symp. Turbul. Turbul. Heat Mass Transf. 2003, 4, 625–632.
22. Wang, J.B.; Minelli, G.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Krajnovic, S.; Gao, G.J. An improved delayed detached eddy
simulation study of the bogie cavity length effects on the aerodynamic performance of a high-speed train.
J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2020. [CrossRef]
23. Dong, T.Y.; Minelli, G.; Wang, J.B.; Liang, X.F.; Krajnovic, S. The effect of ground clearance on the aerodynamics
of a generic high-speed train. J. Fluids Struct. 2020, 95. [CrossRef]
24. Minelli, G.; Yao, H.D.; Andersson, N.; Höstmad, P.; Forssén, J.; Krajnovic, S. An aeroacoustic study of the
flow surrounding the front of a simplified ICE3 high-speed train model. Appl. Acoust. 2020, 160. [CrossRef]
25. Wang, J.B.; Minelli, G.; Dong, T.Y.; Chen, G.; Krajnovic, C. The effect of bogie fairings on the slipstream and
wake flow of a high-speed train. An IDDES study. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2019, 191, 183–202. [CrossRef]
26. Dong, T.; Liang, X.; Krajnović, S.; Xiong, X.; Zhou, W. Effects of simplifying train bogies on surrounding flow
and aerodynamic forces. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2019, 191, 170–182. [CrossRef]
27. Niu, J.Q.; Zhou, D.; Liang, X.F.; Liu, T.H.; Liu, S. Numerical study on the aerodynamic pressure of a metro
train running between two adjacent platforms. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2017, 65, 187–199. [CrossRef]
28. Paz, C.; Suárez, E.; Gil, C. Numerical methodology for evaluating the effect of sleepers in the underbody
flow of a high-speed train. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2017, 167, 140–147. [CrossRef]
29. Niu, J.Q.; Zhou, D.; Liang, X.F.; Liu, S.; Liu, T.H. Numerical simulation of the Reynolds number effect on the
aerodynamic pressure in tunnels. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2018, 173, 187–198. [CrossRef]
30. British Standard. Available online: https://www.bsigroup.com/.2010EN14067-6 (accessed on 15 May 2020).
31. Cross, D.; Hughes, B.; Ingham, D.; Ma, L. A validated numerical investigation of the effects of high blockage
ratio and train and tunnel length upon underground railway aerodynamics. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2015,
146, 192–206. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).